Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Jesus Christ STOP pulling this thread off topic there are numerous threads on migrants Syria etc, is there no mods?
Please look at this poor girl Ebba 11 years old on the way home from school and targeted by this scumbag! It could have been your daughter or little sister! RIP poor child
https://twitter.com/chrisjunkfood/status/850821920417251328

This thread has now shown a new low has been reached by some in their endeavour to excuse islamist terrorism.

We now are being told that it isn't so bad because more people die in traffic accidents, more die of cancer, more die due to obesity, etc, etc.
Should we ban cars rather than islamic hate preachers ?

There have been a few who have pedaled the statistical line for a while but it has been pushed extremily hard in this thread.

Well why don't you lot go and tell that to the parents and family of the 11 year old child whose life was brought to an end.

Some people really are disgusting how far they will go to downplay what is now becoming the new norm in Europe.

I do wonder if these same people will stop and think for a moment the next time they go for a city break around Europe.
Will they think twice about Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Stockholm, Nice, Madrid,
London ?

Of course the worry isn't the bombers, the AK wielding returning jihadists, the truck driving wantabees, the knife wielding headhunters.
It is the right wingers. :rolleyes:

OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »

Privacy will only be an illusion if everyone says that privacy is an illusion. The state cannot spy on you in Germany, but can in the UK.

Spying has diminishing returns. It is one thing monitoring dark net sites used by members of ISIS to coordinate attacks, which is likely to produce very useful results, but monitoring every private citizen is almost useless (as it produces so much noise it's almost impossible to see the wood for the trees) and erodes everyone's civil liberties.

The most recent Wikileaks revalations showing that the CIA now has ways of potentially silently assassinating anyone who is driving a smart car (by being able to cause crashes) is far more alarming than it is comforting.

Besides which, with surveilance it will be low hanging fruit which is targeted: people who are harmless but are saying something publicly on Twitter. The US government recently demanded the personal identity of a Twitter user who had been criticising Trump, which, kudos to Twitter, they refused to give. The US government has since decided to drop the case (on the grounds that it is probably illegal). It should be. Privacy laws exist for a reason.

You make very good points and please don't get me wrong-I'm just saying it is of less concern to me than the attacks and spread of Islamism. And it's being used to imply the attacks were staged just to make people acquiesce to the surveillance.

Earlier in this thread I quoted someone I know who said of open borders: ''There might be a few nasty incidents but it would be worth it''. I find it disgusting that deaths like those in Stockholm are written off as a few nasty incidents (no matter ow often it happens) but tere's panic over the potential for a whatsapp message to be read without authorisation. Surely the Trump/Twitter case comes under ''a few nasty incidents'', at any rate. Not to say it's not important at all..

Widdershins wrote: »

Privacy is an illusion. There is none. If you want it, stay off whatsapp and the internet, or talk in code if it's something personal. If you accept that this terrorism insurgency is real, then you know how little the security folks have to go on, and how hard it is to prevent attacks like Stockholm. If a whasapp message is the only clue then let them do what they need to do with whatsapp, imo. I'd put those peoples lives higher on my list of priorities than a flimsy notion of privacy in texts.

If Whatsapp are forced to build in a security hole so US authorities (NSA/FBI) can access messages it won't help any other force on the planet.
Also terrorists will just switch from Whatsapp to another encrypted app while regular people's messages can now be hacked by police or by regular hackers.

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

As with every single thread of this nature, to some, the following statements are true;

"Showing compassion for those displaced by war = excusing terrorism."
"Not agreeing with an outright ban of an entire religion = excusing terrorism"
"Disagreeing with any of my points = excusing terrorism"

So lets analyse the above and see where showing compassion for those supposedly fleeing war gets you.

The Berlin attacker, Anis Amri, was a failed asylum seeker/refugee from Tunisia.
He was one of those that the gullible have welcomed into Europe.
Would he have ended up in Germany if Europe/EU had tighter border controls or if they immediately deported those that were convicted of criminal offenses ?

It looks like the attacker in Stockholm is Uzbek.
He is not Syrian, not Iraqi which we are always being told are the poor ones clamouring aboard dodgy sinking boats that must then be rescued and given refugee in Europe.
How did he end up in Sweden ?

The prime suspect in the 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings entered the US as a 7 year old asylum seeker from Afghanistan.

Two of the attackers in Paris in November 2015 were Iraqis who had entered Greece as asylum seekers and then traveled to France via the so-called Balkan route. They carried forged Syrian passports.

And that does even bother including all of those individual deaths and rapes carried out by so called refugees in Europe.
Remember the girl working in the refugee centre killed by the Afghani so called child?
Remember the rape and murder of the young woman in Germany that was daughter of EU official ?
Remember the mass sexual assaults in Cologne carried out by so called refugees and asylum seekers ?

And no one is saying outright ban on religion, but go ahead and try twist statements.
People are calling for strict controls on establishments preaching hatred and death to non believers.
They are calling for tighter controls on where the funding of religious establishments is being sourced.
They are calling for tighter controls on allowing people enter from countries where there is already huge amount of hatred for the west.

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

Jmayo, I believe people are bringing cancer, RTA and other more likely ways of dying into the debate as terrorism gets an overwhelming amount of coverage in comparison. To a degree we accept the risk involved in driving a car, or ingesting carcinogenics but in comparison, our reactions to terrorism are over the top. This doesn't mean it should be accepted or condoned, it's just an observation of data and reaction to that data.

Engaging in obvious whataboutery to me is as good as excusing it.
The de rigueur whataboutery to date has been to drag in the catholic church, the history of European terrorist organisations, the fact the major western powers have been involved in wars in middle east or backed Israel.

Now the latest is to drag out stats to show that really islamist terrorism is not so bad in the grand scheme of things when you compare the numbers killed to say the numbers killed in road accidents.

Next fooking thing you know is some muppets will want to classify the Nice, London, Berlin and Stockholm attacks as traffic collisions. :mad:

I wish some of the people desperately trying to downplay the latest attacks had to stand face to face with that 11 year olds family or the family of the American couple visiting London and tell them how their loved ones were lucky they hadn't been killed by a speeding motorist and shure they probably would have developed cancer at a later date.

jmayo wrote: »

So lets analyse the above and see where showing compassion for those supposedly fleeing war gets you.

But this is essentially tarring all war refugees as people out to cause havoc in Europe. No matter how many examples you give it's always going to be a minority of people that are causing problems. It's like Irish people going to Australia and causing trouble (which happened) and Australians saying all Irish people are trouble causers.

Now, Irish acting the mick abroad isn't in the same league as Muslims killing and raping, and Foreigners coming to your country and killing or raping is always going to upset more than the average local crime that happens every day. But we are essentially looking to treat all Muslims the same and differently to how we treat non-Muslims. We are setting Muslims in general apart for special scrutiny. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's what's happening here.


The problem is at this stage our controls are getting so strict and our contempt so obvious that it's creating animosity in that group of people. We're now at the stage where any Muslim with any kind of problems can justify killing people. They don't even need to be part of a terrorist network.

For the west to discriminate against any group is a slight failure in our ideals. It means that the terrorists have managed to undermine our freedoms.

I'm not against slowing the influx of foreign cultures that are incompatible. But I think a Muslim born in Ireland is entitled to the same freedoms as any other religion. I think all religions should be independant and self supporting, I have no problem with reducing religious influence in general.

Danzy wrote: »

Will they still allow fighters back in to Sweden, with promises of houses, education, support etc etc.

Probably, Social Democrats are a weird community.
Did you know they opened a phone line for ex-terrorists? No-one called.

Sweden is a bit of a haven for terrorists and war criminals

Imagine every terror attack so far was a plane crash with the same amount of fatalities.
Wouldn't people start going "dafuq is up with flying nowadays..", particularly if it was all the same airline..

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If he was a failed asylum seeker how was he welcomed?

Failed asylum seeker Pamela Izevbekhai was very welcome by some in Ireland.
Hell you had some of our politicians and media types falling over themselves to help her.

BTW before the usual ones try twist my comments I am not in any way saying Pamela Izevbekhai was or is a terrorist.
She was just untrustworthy and basically found to be a liar.

At some stage I bet you will find this guy got a helping hand by some well meaning types to get to Sweden or did he fly from Uzbekistan to Sweden ?
Likewise Anis Amri was well taken care of when he arrived in Lampedusa in Italy.
Sadly the care wasn't totally to his liking so he burned a refugee centre down.
Still I bet he got legal representation for his day in court and wasn't promptly fooked back into the Med by the Italian authorities when his sentence was finished.

ScumLord wrote: »

But this is essentially tarring all war refugees as people out to cause havoc in Europe. No matter how many examples you give it's always going to be a minority of people that are causing problems. It's like Irish people going to Australia and causing trouble (which happened) and Australians saying all Irish people are trouble causers.

Now, Irish acting the mick abroad isn't in the same league as Muslims killing and raping, and Foreigners coming to your country and killing or raping is always going to upset more than the average local crime that happens every day.

Glad you noticed the Irish getting pished abroad aren't the same as a bunch of murderers and rapists.

ScumLord wrote: »

But we are essentially looking to treat all Muslims the same and differently to how we treat non-Muslims. We are setting Muslims in general apart for special scrutiny. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's what's happening here.

Hmmm let me see why muslims are being treated differently.
Are muslims the ones currently creating the greatest terrorist threat ?
Are muslims the ones often harbouring terrorists ?
Are muslims the ones often refusing to obey the current laws and social constructs in Western countries ?
Are muslims the ones often demanding isolationist and separate treatment in Western countries ?
Are muslims the ones complaining and often threatening violence about our rights to free speech ?

Now it is of course not all or every single muslim, but it is sizable amount that they do as a group deserve to be treated differently.
You see some of us realise that it has happened that the well behaved and nice young chap Mohammed, Ali or Omar that lived down the street and seemed to be just another young lad has actually turned out to be a killer who doesn't like his country or his neighbours and would like to see them all dead.

Mohammed Emwazi, alias jihadi John, was supposedly a nice lad at one stage.
I am sure some people in Ireland would have said Khalid Kelly was a nice lad too when he was growing up.

Oh and the Irish did get special scrutiny in the UK during the troubles.
Maybe it had something to do with fact Irish were far more likely to be in PIRA, INLA, etc.

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is at this stage our controls are getting so strict and our contempt so obvious that it's creating animosity in that group of people. We're now at the stage where any Muslim with any kind of problems can justify killing people. They don't even need to be part of a terrorist network.

For the west to discriminate against any group is a slight failure in our ideals. It means that the terrorists have managed to undermine our freedoms.

I'm not against slowing the influx of foreign cultures that are incompatible. But I think a Muslim born in Ireland is entitled to the same freedoms as any other religion. I think all religions should be independant and self supporting, I have no problem with reducing religious influence in general.

If the muslim born in Ireland doesn't start demanding that the rest of us change to suit his/her beliefs, if the muslim born in Ireland doesn't start preaching hatred towards non muslims then they can knock themsleves out praying or whatever.
The problem can be that the muslim, born in Ireland or elsewhere, thinks that they do indeed deserve special treatment and the rest of us who don't believe in the same things are lesser and have to be converted or worse.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If he was a failed asylum seeker how was he welcomed?

He failed the process. There has to be a process, right? Unless you believe that everybody should be let in.
Events showed that the process was correct in his case. He was of a criminal and/or psychopathic and/or unstable nature and the process either picked up on that, or noticed other deficiencies in his case.
Or do you think that failing the process is grounds for committing mass murder?

ScumLord wrote: »

Now, Irish acting the mick abroad isn't in the same league as Muslims killing and raping, and Foreigners coming to your country and killing or raping is always going to upset more than the average local crime that happens every day.

You think?

ScumLord wrote: »

But we are essentially looking to treat all Muslims the same and differently to how we treat non-Muslims. We are setting Muslims in general apart for special scrutiny. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's what's happening here.

Well, that may be unfortunate, but it's hardly unforseen or unusual. It's a fairly inevitable consequence of Islamist terrorism.

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is at this stage our controls are getting so strict and our contempt so obvious that it's creating animosity in that group of people. We're now at the stage where any Muslim with any kind of problems can justify killing people. They don't even need to be part of a terrorist network.

Other groups have historically been the focus of animosity, have aroused contempt. They have not reacted like that. I remember well a Zairean immigrant interviewed in the aftermath of the Brussels atrocities. His attitude towards his Muslim neighbours was caustic and dismissive. He said that Muslims had no idea what real discrimination was like as Zaireans experienced it, the struggle of black belgians to be accepted as equals, their young men constantly being arrested, harassed and searched by the police, assuming them to be carrying and dealing drugs. "We don't go around planting bombs in railways stations and shooting people" he said.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not against slowing the influx of foreign cultures that are incompatible. But I think a Muslim born in Ireland is entitled to the same freedoms as any other religion.

Are they not as it is? I know of no instance of a Muslim in Ireland from being hindered in the practise of his faith.

ScumLord wrote: »

I think all religions should be independant and self supporting...

No beef with that. But the fact is that we can't ignore institutional Islam. It's clear that Mosques in Britain and abroad have been associated with of-let's say-"unsavoury" activities. Until this ceases Mosques and other Islamic organisations and institutions are inevitably going to be the focus of attention.

jmayo wrote: »

And you obviously definite the definition of welcome to mean the police and official channels.

For someone supposedly so unwelcome here perhaps you can tell us ...

how come she had supporters who were willing to go to high court to seek injunction to rpevent her deportation ?
how someone so unwelcome here got on marian finucane show to tell her story ?
how someone so unwelcome here managed to get so many groups throughout the country to support her ?

You forgot to mention she was eventually deported after 6 years was it not ?

Anyway lets go back on topic as I know it is advantageous for some to bring this off on a tangent.

I remember reading about this. She was seen as the underdog. The Irish will fight for the underdog. And most definitely make them welcome. It's a shame she turned out to be a fraud.