Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Donal55 · 10-04-2017 07:59PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It was run by a dictator, Islam Karimov, up until he died in September.

There was a massacre of opposition and citizens there back in 2005 in the city of Andijan. Over 100 (some sources say 1000) were killed by the army/security services

Perhaps he was persecuted, or said he was persecuted, by the Uzbek Secret Services?

Heard they 'boiled' their prisoners alive in that place. Googled it before and some horrific pictures showed up!

Ulysses Gaze · 10-04-2017 10:00PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Could you expand on that, please? I'm pretty convinced the police had no hand nor part in those attacks and that they don't have some kind of lust for reading everyone's boring emails.

The right to access everybody's private data is essentially what they have been doing anyway.

The Snowdon files confirmed what many had suspected - the Government was spying on its citizenry. In the name of "security" and to combat "terrorism".

Look at the Snoopers Charter that has recently been enacted into the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance

The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been described as “a death sentence for investigative journalism” in the UK.

And before anyone chimes in with - "Well I have nothing to hide so I don't care" - how about you just hand over the keys to your house and let the police and security services go through it.

Mountainsandh · 10-04-2017 10:00PM

Uzbekistan : My mother went there as a tourist to travel along the silk road in 2014, it looks lovely from a tourist point of view. She didn't notice any signs of tensions anyway.

Donal55 · 10-04-2017 10:03PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

My mother went there as a tourist to travel along the silk road in 2014, it looks lovely from a tourist point of view.

I'd a great holiday in Tunisia in 2006 with my family.
A few years back all those tourists died on the same beach.
Times & people change.

Mountainsandh · 10-04-2017 10:15PM

Donal55 wrote: »

I'd a great holiday in Tunisia in 2006 with my family.
A few years back all those tourists died on the same beach.
Times & people change.

Tunisia has always had a reputation for hidden tensions though, and the terror attack was aimed at tourists.

Anyway, the terror suspect's request for asylum failed, he shouldn't have been in Stockholm really.

fly_agaric · 10-04-2017 10:24PM

jmayo wrote: »

Anis Amri

Afair one of the the problems was Tunisia wouldn't take him back.
To paraphrase Trump (god help me) "they're not always sending their best". They probably knew they would be getting a handful of trouble back, and countries are quite happy to stiff Europe with surplus jihadis & criminals if they can manage it. From a self interest point of view its perfectly understandable they might try and avoid getting lumbered with such people again.

Ulysses Gaze · 11-04-2017 12:19AM

fly_agaric wrote: »

Afair one of the the problems was Tunisia wouldn't take him back.
To paraphrase Trump (god help me) "they're not always sending their best". They probably knew they would be getting a handful of trouble back, and countries are quite happy to stiff Europe with surplus jihadis & criminals if they can manage it. From a self interest point of view its perfectly understandable they might try and avoid getting lumbered with such people again.

I have long suspected that a number of these countries are conducting their own version of the Mariel Boatlift. Emptying their prisons of undesirables and sending them on their merry way to Europe with the wider group of refugees. Same as Castro did in 1980.

It would explain a lot of the criminal behaviour we see from a minority.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-04-2017 10:02AM

jmayo wrote: »

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.
2016 New York and New Jersey bombings.
Attacks in Paris in November 2015.
The girl working in the refugee centre
The rape and murder of the young woman in Germany that was daughter of EU official.
Remember the mass sexual assaults in Cologne.

I don't recall each story, but allowing a minority to tarnish millions of people is just ignorant. You won't hear of the good stories in the papers as it's just not interesting, but I am sure there are plenty. Nobody has condoned any crime committed by asylum seekers or those of 2nd/3rd generation asylum seekers. Nobody is looking for open borders and free roaming for those asylum seekers. Voice your arguments to your local representatives or anybody who will listen. We need to take a very hard line on those who are denied asylum. Evict them immediately, but what do you do when their country don't want them back and deny they are a citizen? Should all asylum seekers be locked up while they are being processed? Should millions suffer because of a minority?

But fook those average joes for leaving a warzone, to hell with them, let them die, don't show compassion or even treat them as human, they are different, they are not us.

And no one is saying outright ban on religion, but go ahead and try twist statements.

Some people are calling for a ban on islam, it's a statement which can be seen in all similar threads "Islam is not compatible" etc etc.

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.

This is where the majority of people (hopefully) share a common ground. We have been failed on many occasions, I perceive that our governments are afraid of being labelled with some nasty words, or losing a vote because of their hard-line approach. How exactly can you stop all these people from entering? Where does the resources come from? European coastline is vast and while I am not 100% sure about the logistics, I imagine it's quite difficult to keep an eye on it all.

Engaging in obvious whataboutery to me is as good as excusing it.

It's absolutely not the same thing. Pointing to other causes of death which are far higher than terrorism and the reaction to both, is not excusing either. Nobody in this entire thread excused terrorism. Every single thread is the same story. Creating straw men to strengthen your argument.

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:

Sensationalist bullshÃt.

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.

Another straw man, I haven't seen anybody downplaying this or any other attack. Just because you don't agree with somebodies points, doesn't mean they support terrorism, as you so put it. Would you like to be labelled as a racist bigot because of your approach? I doubt it, as both arguments are as dumb as a bag of bricks.

blinding · 11-04-2017 10:03AM

Its okay folks . These two will sort everything out......

http://media.comicbook.com/2017/04/kendall-jenner-pepsi-988607-1280x0.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/10/11/3F12B50200000578-4397158-Row_Saffiyah_Khan_staring_down_English_Defence_League_EDL_leader-a-10_1491821199340.jpg

Widdershins · 11-04-2017 10:12AM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The right to access everybody's private data is essentially what they have been doing anyway.

The Snowdon files confirmed what many had suspected - the Government was spying on its citizenry. In the name of "security" and to combat "terrorism".

Look at the Snoopers Charter that has recently been enacted into the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/snoopers-charter-bill-becomes-law-extending-uk-state-surveillance

And before anyone chimes in with - "Well I have nothing to hide so I don't care" - how about you just hand over the keys to your house and let the police and security services go through it.

I don't see home searching as an inevitable or likely next step. All of your browsing history is collected anyway, isn't it? And acquiscing to one doesn't mean automatic consent to the other.

I don't know you, so don't take this personally, but of those I do know who say that, they're all a bit on the paranoid side and all make unusual effort to use the less mainstream email and social networking sites. Most importantly, they deny the legitimacy of terror attacks purely because they are so afraid of the snooper's charter.

It's just my view, personally, I don't care, and I put tackling terrorism higher on my list of priorities than email or text message secrecy.

Special Circumstances · 11-04-2017 10:12AM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

But fook those average joes for leaving a warzone, to hell with them, let them die, don't show compassion or even treat them as human, they are different, they are not us.

Sensationalist bullshÃt.

Good man.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-04-2017 10:26AM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Good man.

Your point... where is it?

Special Circumstances · 11-04-2017 10:30AM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

Your point... where is it?

Pointy? Is that a derogatory reference?

Mountainsandh · 11-04-2017 02:15PM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

But fook those average joes for leaving a warzone, to hell with them, let them die, don't show compassion or even treat them as human, they are different, they are not us.
.

Pretend this was a global medical disaster for a second. This might strip the situation off spiritual/cultural/religious weight maybe.

An epidemic.
Our screening processes are not so good. We have no cure.
Risk of contagion is pretty high.
Carriers may not show they're infected.

The disease is life altering at least, lethal at worst. Lots have already died, lots more are going to die.

People from countries affected, say, Canada, US, are desperate to flee and take refuge in Europe, where we don't have that virus. It's horrible for them, they have families they want to save and the epidemic is progressing at a very high rate.

Do we show compassion, and put our families and our healthy countries are risk by letting in hundreds of these potentially sick people in ?

I think there was actually a video game made exactly like that. You had to make choices, see if you could save the planet, or save an area.

What would you do IamXavier, let in hundreds of people, who could contaminate you and your loved ones, and other innocent people ?

Or maybe cap the numbers coming drastically, and try to deal as safely as possible with these ones ?

If you retort with "ah but statistics are not that high, it's scaremongering", then you are, imo, under-estimating the risk, and it could cost us dearly some day.

It seems that's all that's between us, on this thread. Risk assessment.
I say the risk is high.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-04-2017 02:36PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Pretend this was a global medical disaster for a second. This might strip the situation off spiritual/cultural/religious weight maybe.

An epidemic.
Our screening processes are not so good. We have no cure.
Risk of contagion is pretty high.
Carriers may not show they're infected.

The disease is life altering at least, lethal at worst. Lots have already died, lots more are going to die.

People from countries affected, say, Canada, US, are desperate to flee and take refuge in Europe, where we don't have that virus. It's horrible for them, they have families they want to save and the epidemic is progressing at a very high rate.

Do we show compassion, and put our families and our healthy countries are risk by letting in hundreds of these potentially sick people in ?

I think there was actually a video game made exactly like that. You had to make choices, see if you could save the planet, or save an area.

What would you do IamXavier, let in hundreds of people, who could contaminate you and your loved ones, and other innocent people ?

Or maybe cap the numbers coming drastically, and try to deal as safely as possible with these ones ?

If you retort with "ah but statistics are not that high, it's scaremongering", then you are, imo, under-estimating the risk, and it could cost us dearly some day.

It seems that's all that's between us, on this thread. Risk assessment.
I say the risk is high.

That's a very poor analogy. Although some are going to argue otherwise, war doesn't follow refugees. If there was an endemic as in your example, I would imagine there would be a quarantine phase for those coming from effected countries.

biko · 11-04-2017 02:43PM

biko wrote: »

One of the victims was a dog.

Since no-one bothered much about it (which in a way I can understand), Markus K, a citizen, created a little "remembrance garden" for it.
The collar is from his first dog that is no longer alive.

Nice touch and a reminder that not only people are victims to terrorists

Turns out the dog, Iggy, was a rescue dog from Ireland of all places!
www.lifewithdogs.tv/2017/04/one-mans-tribute-sparks-a-huge-memorial-for-dog-killed-in-stockholm-attack/

11-04-2017 02:46PM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

That's a very poor analogy. Although some are going to argue otherwise, war doesn't follow refugees. If there was an endemic as in your example, I would imagine there would be a quarantine phase for those coming from effected countries.

Ah, but people would regard that quarantine as being justified, whereas any suggestion of extra scrutiny - not quarantine - for those without ID, has resulted in furious rebuttal on other threads. It is regarded as anything from racist, to uncaring, to an infringement of Human rights.

Yet, the risks are the same for those who suffer at the hands of jihadis, as they are for those who die as a result of infectious disease.

So, what do you think we should do?

Mountainsandh · 11-04-2017 05:07PM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

That's a very poor analogy. Although some are going to argue otherwise, war doesn't follow refugees. If there was an endemic as in your example, I would imagine there would be a quarantine phase for those coming from effected countries.

That's one way to avoid answering the questions.
For a start, war is not the subject of the analogy, islamism is.

Quarantine is a limited element of a screening process, which I have stated is poor. I guess we could parallel it with the asylum seeking process, except clearly in my analogy we want to keep the existing citizens safe, so people quarantined are in effect still kept out of the country.

The questions stand, but you can choose to continue to evade by twisting semantics.

It's just not very comforting for others to know that there are many more like you, who choose to avoid rather than confront the hard questions.

For all you know you, I, or someone we love could be the next victims of a terror attack. It's not far fetched, it's not emotive, it's just an increasing statistical probability. The question overall is : are you willing to let the authorities do something about it.

Widdershins · 11-04-2017 05:10PM

I find it callous that people only care if the statistics suggest they will know the next victims. The fact that its probably going to happen to other people should be enough reason to address it.

Mountainsandh · 11-04-2017 05:17PM

Widdershins wrote: »

I find it callous that people only care if the statistics suggest they will know the next victims. The fact that its probably going to happen to other people should be enough reason to address it.

Good point, although the "closer to home" element is only human. Like Pangbang said the other night, when it boils down to it, our pack or our communities come first. It can be unpalatable but that's natural IMO.

Donal55 · 11-04-2017 07:30PM

Reports that bomb gone off near Dortmund FC bus. Mixed reports but 1 player apparently taken to hospital.
On Newstalk, 'Off the ball' show.

RobertKK · 11-04-2017 07:32PM

Three explosions in Dortmund.

I think many in Europe don't feel 'Refugees welcome', from regions who don't share our values.

11-04-2017 08:48PM

Donal55 wrote: »

Reports that bomb gone off near Dortmund FC bus. Mixed reports but 1 player apparently taken to hospital.
On Newstalk, 'Off the ball' show.

Thankfully no-one was badly injured.

Widdershins · 11-04-2017 09:47PM

There is no thread about this that I can find. A Jewish woman was murdered by her neighbour, who shouted allahu akbar. It seems it happened in France last week.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227835

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-04-2017 09:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, but people would regard that quarantine as being justified, whereas any suggestion of extra scrutiny - not quarantine - for those without ID, has resulted in furious rebuttal on other threads. It is regarded as anything from racist, to uncaring, to an infringement of Human rights.

Those people would be idiots then, wouldn't they?

Yet, the risks are the same for those who suffer at the hands of jihadis, as they are for those who die as a result of infectious disease.

So, what do you think we should do?

I gave a few examples previously, but that was in relation to the "watch list" that we hear of every so often. Everybody knows that we should tighten border controls, yet I doubt many people want to pay for that or have their lives up-scuttled as a result. They want a result without change, which isn't possible.

Mountainsandh wrote: »

That's one way to avoid answering the questions.
For a start, war is not the subject of the analogy, islamism is.

Actually, your analogy was specifically about an imaginary infectious disease. Again, your analogy is shÃt, there's far too many variables and "what if's" and other nonsense which can't be measured. Analogies in general are idiotic, "i'll make up something that nobody could possibly argue against and liken it to the OP, there... that will win the debate".

It's just not very comforting for others to know that there are many more like you, who choose to avoid rather than confront the hard questions.

So what are people like me like? Please enlighten me.

For all you know you, I, or someone we love could be the next victims of a terror attack. It's not far fetched, it's not emotive, it's just an increasing statistical probability. The question overall is : are you willing to let the authorities do something about it.

I could very well die on my next commute, but I will still get into my car and drive. You see how analogies are stupid?

To your last question, if you followed the thread and read my posts, you would have your answer

11-04-2017 10:41PM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

Those people would be idiots then, wouldn't they?

There are an awful lot of idiotic medical personnel and Governments, then.

Remember Ebola? Where quarantine restrictions were imposed in quite a few Countries?

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

I gave a few examples previously, but that was in relation to the "watch list" that we hear of every so often. Everybody knows that we should tighten border controls, yet I doubt many people want to pay for that or have their lives up-scuttled as a result. They want a result without change, which isn't possible.

So, again, what do you suggest?

I note you say we should tighten border controls. (which, by the way, some of have been calling for for some time, and being accused of all sorts of "isms" for our troubles!).

Yet, in the next sentence, you say you doubt if people want to pay for increased border controls.

Do you think people want to die, or be injured? Do you think they're happy to pay for infrastructural damage?

People want a result, all right.

I have no idea where you get this idea that they're unwilling to either pay for increased border security. (Which, incidentally, should have been increased as soon as it became evident that border security couldn't cope with the increased numbers!).

I suspect that increased security would significantly reduce the cost of supporting failed "asylum seekers", and associated legal costs.

If these attacks continue, as we all know they will, increased security, together with expedited deportation will almost undoubtedly prove to be the most cost effective option, imo.

Increased security is, of course, also required for the "home-grown" variety of terrorist.

Anything else is, at this stage, beyond incompetent.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 11-04-2017 11:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are an awful lot of idiotic medical personnel and Governments, then.

Remember Ebola? Where quarantine restrictions were imposed in quite a few Countries?

Not those people, the latter

Funny how you automatically thought my comment was for the former. It's the way it's worded I guess.

So, again, what do you suggest?

I note you say we should tighten border controls. (which, by the way, some of have been calling for for some time, and being accused of all sorts of "isms" for our troubles!).

Yet, in the next sentence, you say you doubt if people want to pay for increased border controls.

Do you think people want to die, or be injured? Do you think they're happy to pay for infrastructural damage?

People want a result, all right.

I have no idea where you get this idea that they're unwilling to either pay for increased border security. (Which, incidentally, should have been increased as soon as it became evident that border security couldn't cope with the increased numbers!).

I'll simply this for you. I doubt people want to foot the bill for the change they want.

I suspect that increased security would significantly reduce the cost of supporting failed "asylum seekers", and associated legal costs.

Possibly, but I don't think we will know that for some time.

If these attacks continue, as we all know they will, increased security, together with expedited deportation will almost undoubtedly prove to be the most cost effective option, imo.

Increased security is, of course, also required for the "home-grown" variety of terrorist.

Anything else is, at this stage, beyond incompetent.

Yea cool, so that's a general plan. Where's the money going to come from to do all of that? Additional tax or maybe reduce budget for say, roads, public transport or education.

Anyway, if you read my previous posts a few pages back and from the start, you would see that we probably agree on most points.

12-04-2017 12:08AM

Kora Modern Pointlessly wrote: »

I'll simply this for you. I doubt people want to foot the bill for the change they want.

Possibly, but I don't think we will know that for some time.

Yea cool, so that's a general plan. Where's the money going to come from to do all of that? Additional tax or maybe reduce budget for say, roads, public transport or education.

Anyway, if you read my previous posts a few pages back and from the start, you would see that we probably agree on most points.

I can see that we do indeed, agree on many points.

However, whether people do, or do not want to pay for increased security is a moot point, at this stage - it is necessary, and has been for some time.

Ireland is fortunate in that we are an Island.

Accordingly, increased surveillance at our borders will not prove to be too expensive, imo.

The difficulty lies with our Governments attitude. They appear to be quite determined to earn "kudos" for humanitarianism from the International Community - to the extent that they actually went searching for minors from Calais, having agreed a number in the Dáil without quantifying the cost!:eek:

Somehow, I doubt if the Dá¡l would agree a similar outlay, without costing it, for increased security.

Yet, each attack on European soil proves the need for security enhancement, through increased vetting, etc.

The Irish people will not forgive the parties who permit terrorist activity, as opposed to extending a temporary welcome to refugees, imo.

Mountainsandh · 12-04-2017 01:13AM

Kora Modern Pointlessly;103193302
Actually, your analogy was specifically about an imaginary infectious disease. Again, your analogy is shÃt, there's far too many variables and "what if's" and other nonsense which can't be measured. Analogies in general are idiotic, "i'll make up something that nobody could possibly argue against and liken it to the OP, there... that will win the debate".

So I'll just take your word for it then, any example of a variable and a what if ? other than the quarantine.
An analogy, however imperfect, can help some people (who are willing) understand little tricky bits, like, what are the serious issues we have to face, or what are the serious questions we must seek to answer.
I'm not too bothered about winning a debate on a never ending thread tbh, more to check if you can possibly look at things from a different perspective. Evidently you cannot.

So what are people like me like? Please enlighten me.

You missed the enlightening bit :
"who choose to avoid rather than confront the hard questions"

I could very well die on my next commute, but I will still get into my car and drive. You see how analogies are stupid?

Your analogy is not that stupid actually, it just fails to make the difference between something I have control over ie choosing to drive my car, and something that is outside of my control. Other than, pre-empting in the case of terror attacks. Which is my point really. But hey.

To your last question, if you followed the thread and read my posts, you would have your answer

Well I can see that you approve of tight border controls, as they presently are.

What we are discussing here, is whether supplementary, or more drastic measures, are now required. Whether the measures taken up until now have worked, and are working, to protect us.

They haven't protected the young girl in Stockholm for example.

Are we still ok to just go on as before ? Let them in, "quarantine" in situ, and then when they fail the quarantine/asylum seeking process, send them home. So in other words, let everybody in, but temporarily.

mayo4sam2017 · 12-04-2017 01:26AM

there is a very sad page on face book by ebba's father

she is the 11 yr old victim who was cut in half by the lorry,

it;s a

" have you seen my daughter"

fair play to him he forgives the terrorist who his taxes have housed, clothed and fed and that ultimately flattened his daughter under a 15-ton truck

Truck driven into crowd in Stockholm - No Speculation

Comments