Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Ulysses Gaze · 09-04-2017 10:51AM

blinding wrote: »

1st :Stop immigration for a period of 10 years and see how that effects the situation . We have tried the open doors immigration and if that was working we would not be desperately looking for solutions .

2nd : The strongly enforced banning of any religion that does not respect the right of other religions / or non religions to exist.....

There are extreme forms of Islam that call for all non believers in their cult to be murdered . These should be banned and any followers of such cults should be sent to countries (if their are any ) that follow that particular sky fairy .
No economic or other interaction should take place with such countries.

These two reforms should be adopted immediately and if the current politicians do not adopt them I recommend that voters choose politicians that will adopt them...

3rd ; Any religion that does not accept that the law of the land holds above their sky fairy laws should be banned.........

1. There has never been "open doors immigration".

2. Banning a religion is not the answer. Monitoring where the funding for terror mosques/schools is coming from and banning that is more workable.

SterlingArcher · 09-04-2017 10:52AM

20Cent wrote: »

So right wing people.

What's your solution?
Hearing a lot of criticism of Swedens approach but not many solutions.

Who have you decided are these "right wing" people you are calling out.

you quickly aim to label ideas as from one group or another? To separate into groups. Because after all pushing them into groups means less chance of worthwhile dialogue. Does it scare you that there might be a genuine general consensus that Swedens policies regarding immigration are a failure?

If you say well how are Swedens policies a failure. It is admitting to it's failures right infront of your eyes. Its leaders have not come out and said this was not a good idea. But the actions of a coward speak louder than the words. Closing the border is the truth of the failed policy.

If you do not believe that there are "left wing" people in Sweden that feel helpless and angered by their elected representatives and the woeful ignorance they have displayed . you're are another (I won't say left wing) Ignorant one.

09-04-2017 10:55AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That was indeed a deeply stupid movie.

Meanwhile, in real life, actual human rights apply to humans, not just to Irish people.

And folks who think Irish people have rights and dark-skinned refugees from overseas do not are racists.

So, who said refugees didn't have rights?

(The discussion, btw, is about an attack in Sweden.)

Do those rights extend to Jihadis?
Since they do, (take a look at the ECHR) how does that affect the rights of genuine refugees, and the Native populations - irrespective of skin tone - who are the real victims here?

bubblypop wrote: »

What about the other side?
The side that takes people for people?
Why does it have to be us or them?

Bubblypop, there is an "us or them". There is society against jihadism - that's us and them - excluding the jihadists.

Then there's supporters of the freedoms we take for granted, (women's rights, gay rights, equality, freedom of speech, etc.) against "fundamentalism", which would try to destroy those freedoms.

The divide is not as extreme in the latter case. If it were, there wouldn't have been "racial tensions" in many European Countries for the last decade or two (at least!)

bubblypop wrote: »

More people left Ireland in the last few years than entered it.

Why did they leave, Bubblypop?

My family members left because they couldn't get work, my son stays away now because he's paying for private treatment for his own son. Treatment that has a very long waiting list, if you can't afford to pay for it, but is vital now for his sons developement.
Treatment that Irish rates of pay will not pay for, and that the Irish State will only pay for when it's too late, and my Grandson's development is permanently impaired.

What about our own homeless Bubblypop?
I know you're a caring person. So, why is it alright for Irish children to be homeless, while those of a different race walk into instant housing, full healthcare, etc.?

There is an "us" and a "them" Bubblypop.
The thing is, most of "us" didn't create that situation.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, dude, I did not deploy any missiles. We are actually just talking, the way you recommend.

But although it may cause some, well, older and less clued in people to accuse me of political correctness or social justice warriordom:

It is Not OK to say "Coloured people". When my dad was slipping, he used to come out and say "n!gger", and you wouldn't do that, but seriously folks, "coloured people" is not a lot better.

Yet "Coloured" was the "politically correct" term a few decades ago. Because people with lesser levels of melanin didn't like being called "Black". Then "Black" became politically correct.

Currently, my future son-in-law refers to his "beautiful brown skin" - which would probably also be considered politically incorrect if I used it....

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Much better to use the US system and lock up the nearest black kid.

Or shoot him, whichever.

Histrionics.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Some great posting by yourself Mountainsandh, working my way back along now. Depp and Ulysses Gazele too. Sorry if I've left anyone out.

Seems like honest straightforward posting being choked by people seizing on semantics, dancing around points to maintain the doublethink and blindly declaring policies or viewpoints as evil because they are a bit too common sense and based in reality rather than fluffy happy land.

I fell into the trap myself with one posters comments. At first glance they seem racist or whatever because we have been conditioned to think that way about certain facts or ideas. But when you dig down it's just reality. The same reality that we've been encouraged to suspend for some warm fuzzy virtue signalling.

Welcome to discussion - or obfuscation, which is very common when it comes to this subject.:D

Little CuChulainn · 09-04-2017 10:57AM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Who have you decided are these "right wing" people you are calling out.

you quickly aim to label ideas as from one group or another? To separate into groups. Because after all pushing them into groups means less chance of worthwhile dialogue. Does it scare you that there might be a genuine general consensus that Swedens policies regarding immigration are a failure?

Yeah, labels are terrible. They really stifle discussion.

SterlingArcher wrote: »

You sure you are not an sjw? Because you made up a whole backstory about a racist dad and your poor mother fighting the good fight . Then changed the character mid way like a shoddy B movie to father in law from the old south, thats deep in the closet. .

because has all the hallmarks of an sjw. Talking random jibberish to make a point, crying racist, pretending you care about a minority, seeking attention.

Like I said. the other poster may have used incorrect terminology. But his words were at least honest.

blinding · 09-04-2017 10:57AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

1) How has the US been doing with stopping illegal immigrants coming from Mexico?

2+3) Historically, can you point to a time where banning a religion has resulted in good things?

With modern technology it would be possible to monitor whether people are employing illegal immigrants . The will has not been there .Politicians speak with forked tongue , sometimes talking about controlling immigration while doing nothing to stop the employment of illegal immigrants . How much does an ordinary person get away with when the government puts in the resources to control ordinary people . Sweet fook all....

I am only interested in banning the extreme forms of Islam . Moderate Muslims would also be interested in controlling extreme muslim cults.............

SterlingArcher · 09-04-2017 11:05AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

1) How has the US been doing with stopping illegal immigrants coming from Mexico?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/03/09/Illegal-border-crossings-from-Mexico-down-40/6631489075068/

Seems quite well actually. Considering that Mexico borders the US. It would seem more people are deterred by the greatly increased amount people smugglers are charging. Less people making the journey less people getting exploited.

Mexico shares it's border with the us. I don't know how relevant an example this is. Most the immigrants in Sweden have had to cross dangerous waters and travel through many safe countries.

SterlingArcher · 09-04-2017 11:07AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yeah, labels are terrible. They really stifle discussion.

If I said anything regarding that poster it was because I believed they were trolling. Considering all the posts and made up stuff if you bothered to look at them. Although that wouldn't suit the agenda here would it.

Little CuChulainn · 09-04-2017 11:09AM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/03/09/Illegal-border-crossings-from-Mexico-down-40/6631489075068/

Seems quite well actually. Considering that Mexico borders the US. It would seem more people are deterred by the greatly increased amount people smugglers are charging. Less people making the journey less people getting exploited.

Mexico shares it's border with the us. I don't know how relevant an example this is. Most the immigrants in Sweden have had to cross dangerous waters and travel through many safe countries.

Historically, the US attempts to stop illegal immigration has been ineffective. It's only down now because people don't want to go to the US. It's not like they've made big changes to their policing. You're not going to stop something by banning it. You have to address the cause.

SterlingArcher · 09-04-2017 11:22AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Historically, the US attempts to stop illegal immigration has been ineffective. It's only down now because people don't want to go to the US. .

So contrary to your original statement. illegal Mexican crossings are down. Saying historically only further proves that something was not deterring them. You say it's only down because people don't want to go there no. them no longer wanting to go the Us illegally regardless the reasons is the intention and desired result.

Again this does not really give good insight into Swedens issues now.

Snake Plisken · 09-04-2017 11:38AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Historically, the US attempts to stop illegal immigration has been ineffective. It's only down now because people don't want to go to the US. It's not like they've made big changes to their policing. You're not going to stop something by banning it. You have to address the cause.

Lads This is about the Truck attack in Sweden! Let's get back onto that.

Little CuChulainn · 09-04-2017 11:38AM

SterlingArcher wrote: »

So contrary to your original statement. illegal Mexican crossings are down. Saying historically only further proves that something was not deterring them. You say it's only down because people don't want to go there no. them no longer wanting to go the Us illegally regardless the reasons is the intention and desired result.

Again this does not really give good insight into Swedens issues now.

Making your country ****ter to deter immigrants is a bad tactic in my view.

Little CuChulainn · 09-04-2017 11:47AM

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Lads This is about the Truck attack in Sweden! Let's get back onto that.

I see they are reporting an explosive device being found. Makes the whole thing a little strange. Was he originally going to bomb somewhere and saw the opportunity to take the truck on the way? Why didn't he detonate the bomb instead of being captured?

Will I Am Not · 09-04-2017 11:48AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Making your country ****ter to deter immigrants is a bad tactic in my view.

In what way has it been made "sh*tter"?

Widdershins · 09-04-2017 11:54AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, really.

Would you call someone a "big buck n!gger"? My father-in-law did.

Just words, right?

I'm sorry to hear about your father (whether you believe me or not) but you should stop projecting your memories onto others. Just because your father was 'clever' (or sneaky) enough to hide his views until he wasn't able to hide it anymore, does not mean that others are doing that. Most people with a nasty personality hide it, but suspecting everyone of being the same, is just strange and unfair. Your attitude makes people feel like they have to list their non-racist credentials to 'prove' themselves. I can't be bothered, I have nothing I need to prove.
You might try to respect others views instead of bad mindedly suspecting secret motives. It is a revolting thing to go around suspecting others the way you seem to be doing.

A good indicator of a racist attitude is the denial of personal agency based on their skin colour and refusal to address them as equals. It's not benign, it's condescending and dehumanising.

SterlingArcher · 09-04-2017 11:55AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Making your country ****ter to deter immigrants is a bad tactic in my view.

I too am curious about this?

A different president? what makes it ****ter? Believe it or not CuChulainn alot of these policies were being pushed before the change over. The only difference is Obama was more charismatic. Trump is easier to hate

From my view us is still same as it ever was. Corrupted, bombing others homes and taking no responsibility. That cruise missile strike is evidence of that.

Snake Plisken · 09-04-2017 11:57AM

2 Swedes one Belgian woman and one British person were the victims according to police press conference, he was an Isis sympathiser but police didn't think he was dangerous also carnage could have been a lot worse but the homemade bomb on the truck failed to detonate.

Special Circumstances · 09-04-2017 12:00PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I see they are reporting an explosive device being found. Makes the whole thing a little strange. Was he originally going to bomb somewhere and saw the opportunity to take the truck on the way? Why didn't he detonate the bomb instead of being captured?

Different country different incident. Edit... I admit I was mistaken... I thought you were confusing through Oslo incident.

What types of speculation are allowed or not allowed BTW?

Widdershins · 09-04-2017 12:03PM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Some great posting by yourself Mountainsandh, working my way back along now. Depp and Ulysses Gazele too. Sorry if I've left anyone out.

You forgot my stunning posts :mad:

Special Circumstances · 09-04-2017 12:07PM

Widdershins wrote: »

You forgot my stunning posts :mad:

Oops. ;-)
We're ALL winners because we're ALL the same and ALL equally good at everything. I was wrong to single people out.
Everyone gets a halal/kosher lollipop! Yaaay!

Widdershins · 09-04-2017 12:08PM

Master mariner wrote: »

How about helping the refugees where they are,so they can build up their country for starters.
Looks like that is what they want.
The asylumseekers are here for a new life and taking advantage of the situation,this has to stop.We cant save the whole world,refugees should be 1 priority.
Stop helping the asylumseekers coming over from North Africa,this will only lead to more human smugglers making money,and more people drowning, and more problems in Europe with integration.
Europe isnt prepared for a mass immigration at this scale.

Yes. The camps (e.g Dunkirk)are crawling with traffickers, brutalising the women and the vulnerable. Those traffickers are in amongst the refugees, and can't be separated out. If the people in need were helped closer to their own homes then they'd be spared the epic journey in the first place and the traffickers wouldn't be in business.

*I can look for the article I was reading about this is necessary.

Beyondgone · 09-04-2017 12:36PM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I see they are reporting an explosive device being found. Makes the whole thing a little strange. Was he originally going to bomb somewhere and saw the opportunity to take the truck on the way? Why didn't he detonate the bomb instead of being captured?

Well, a common ISIS tactic(in Syria et al) is to take a truck and pack it with explosives, then ram that truck into whatever target is chosen and Boom. Double hit - the trucks impact and then the blast. But, it takes skill to construct a truck bomb that will actually go off. Possibly (and I did mention the "a bit rubbish" aspect before) the "explosive" part of the attack was botched? Hence the failure to detonate.

One aspect that made ETA and the IRA so feared was their ability to construct extremely technical detonation triggers and explosive mixes. However, this can often only be a matter of time.. no doubt the people who are behind these attacks will develop a network of more experienced and more skilled "truck-bomb" makers. If you have helped in a few attacks, and things didn't work, you develop the skills to make ones that do work, I would imagine.

Rather than becoming less common, and less deadly, there is a high probability that these type of attacks will become more commonplace, and much more deadly as time passes. Which is a sobering thought.

Beyondgone · 09-04-2017 12:50PM

Hence too, the truck bursting into flames on impact - if an explosive mix is not detonated correctly, or the mix is damp/wrong/not confined properly, instead of a blast, you get a fire. Which is what you see in the videos of the truck hitting the department store. Hitting the store alone would be highly unlikely to cause a lorry to burst into flames so rapidly as the fuel source is diesel which is not as readily combustible as petrol.

So the "driver" (I prefer maniac tbh) would have attempted to run down as many people as possible over the last few hundred meters, en route to the department store, then crash the vehicle into the store, detonate the onboard payload and BOOM, you have a spectacular - the department store gets blown apart too, with a much higher death toll. The driver also gets his Virgins etc etc. But they boobed on the explosives front and he gets arrested instead of martyred.

The scary part, for the foreseeable future, is that it is close to unpreventable. How do you stop a small group of determined people stealing a truck, filling it with explosives and ramming it into a public area? Basically, you can't. It isn't possible to counter. So Europe has a problem. It's a problem the ME has had for years - bombs and rammings causing huge death tolls, but it's now closer to home. They won't get "worse" at it, they'll get better.

Security for the next decade or two is going to be an onerous job. Rather them than me trying to find a solution. I've none.

Beyondgone · 09-04-2017 01:02PM

As a "thought for the day" - what's to stop a determined, religiously motivated person, with a deep and abiding hatred of the western way of life, morals and religious views(those are the hardest people to combat - they don't fear death, they welcome it) - taking a large truck, filling it with containers of petrol and gas bottles, with a simple detonator - and running that the length of a packed Grafton St before detonating it while buried into the front windows of Brown Thomas? What level of carnage would that produce? Who or what would stop that as it unfolded?

The answer? There is nothing and no one would be able to prevent that scenario. Which is a new and dangerous level of escalation on traditional terrorist tactics. If the security forces had their hands full with people who phoned in warnings of imminent attacks, what chance do they have with people who give no warning? Do you stop and inspect every truck entering a city? What if they take a truck that is already in that city perimeter? Or simply skip the explosive aspect and step into an idling lorry doing a delivery and head off through the nearest crowded public space? It isn't difficult to train someone to drive a lorry. Or costly. It's a tactic that must keep the heads of EU security awake at night.

Mountainsandh · 09-04-2017 01:23PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Security for the next decade or two is going to be an onerous job. Rather them than me trying to find a solution. I've none.

Same here.
Dealing with less potential attackers makes sense.

That means reducing immigration and also reducing chances of radicalization of those already in the targeted country.

These are not racist measures, but for as long as people refuse to even attempt to comprehend that, the threat of terror will continue and increase.

Beyondgone · 09-04-2017 01:26PM

That ^ then is the bones, the practicality, that needs to be addressed.

You have a dismorphous group of highly committed, Religiously motivated, well funded (they are, trust me, plenty of foreign powers happy to help with slush funds etc) people who wish to cause Western Europe harm.

No amount of discussion, name calling, cries of "Wascist!" or "Nazis!", candle lighting, hand wringing, debates, safe spacers, sjw frotting or bed wetting is going to change the fundamentals. What Europe has now is a Security issue. Security issues generally get sorted using force of some shape or form. What form that will take, I have no idea.

I do know however, that hiring the Hari-Krishnas and having them play their bongo drums while burning incense and sharing big hugs has never proven to be an effective aid to any form of Security in the past. Otherwise they would be outside your local pub vetting the queue, instead of a large chap with a broken nose. Sweden seems to be clutching rather too strongly to the Hari Krishna approach, imho. They may well be suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome.

Danzy · 09-04-2017 01:42PM

They truth will come out soon enough, people keep asking why did the security forces know about this radical but did nothing.

There are so many of them and increasing all the time that they cannot manage it, can't manage a portion of them.

Snake Plisken · 09-04-2017 01:48PM

Now being reported that the scumbag was a failed asylum-seeker who was due to be deported
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/851026058136743937

Mountainsandh · 09-04-2017 01:53PM

I don't want to hark back to M Le Pen forever, as I'm no fan of hers to start with , but her program seems a valid example of what could be done, some ways to deal with problems pragmatically, so I'll just summarize what actions she proposes, that might help, imo :

a) Cap immigration, illegal/criminal immigrants sent home, hatred inciting/terror linked immigrants sent home.

She reckons the family link issue has to be tackled, so she says immigration on family grounds/ties should be stopped. That is more controversial I guess, but still a good point. Uncle Whatshisname might be an extreme jihadist, and it's simply too risky to let him in on the grounds he's somebody's uncle. This is a tough one, but I guess when you decide to immigrate, you make a decision on what conditions you are ready to accept or not. Irish immigrants had to make such decisions too.

b) Limit the chances of radicalization in the host country : mosques found to have promoted extremism at any stage in their history to be shut down, citizens or immigrants found to have promoted extremism or have links to same to be sent out of country.
Citizens or immigrants found to have incited hatred of the host country or citizens of the host country should be dealt with by justice, or sent out.
Extreme Islamism online to be blocked as far as possible (ie try and block websites promoting extreme Islamist views).

c) stronger police, better equipped to clean up no go areas in the country, and act on information about gangs and their leaders.

d) help African countries in the development of their school systems, agricultural practices, and defense and security measures. (point 124 in the 144 propositions)

I'm not saying these are the magic solutions to all terror related problems, but there are sensible, potentially effective measures there aren't there ?

Whether your one will implement them as stated, and how likely she is to distort or contort them to serve a different agenda is anyone's guess. That's what people have to decide as they go to the ballot box I suppose.

Beyondgone · 09-04-2017 01:56PM

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Now being reported that the scumbag was a failed asylum-seeker who was due to be deported
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/851026058136743937

Well then clearly, there doesn't need to be a whole new raft of rules, bans, policies or dubious election candidates.

There just needs to be enforcement of the ones in place already.
"You applied for Asylum, your application has failed - there's two lads outside the door now to escort you to the airport and onto the shiny plane. Have a nice day."

Wouldn't work! I hear the cries. It would have in that case ^ anyway. Repeat as necessary.

Help!!!! · 09-04-2017 02:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I think anyone who holds up a Nazi sign should get punched. Happy to do it myself. That sh!t is not acceptable.

I'm happy to punch anyone holding an Antifa sign

Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Comments