Terrorist Assassination Plot in Germany

Realt Dearg Sec · 10-05-2017 05:04PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

From the BBC's guidance policy on the use of the term "terrorist":

"We try to avoid the use of the term "terrorist" without attribution...
The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent", and "militant". "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/terrorism-language/guidance-full

By that policy there is nothing unusual in their not describing it as terrorist and certainly it wouldn't preclude the possibility of anyone else describing it as such.

Peregrinus · 10-05-2017 05:25PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or something like that.

That's quite right. To describe someone as a "freedom fighter" is to call attention to his objectives - namely, freedom. To describe him as a "terrorist" is to call attention to his tactics - namely, terrrorism.

It's entlrely possible to employ terrorism as a tactic in pursuit of the objective of freedom. Why not?

In such cases, whether you call a combatant a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" doesn't necessarily tell me a great deal about the combatant. But it does disclose how you feel about the combatant.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

It was actually the OP who called it a terrorist plot.

I've never said that simply failing to describe terrorism as terrorism amounts to an apology for terrorism. But explicitly denying that terrorism is terrorism is indeed to act as an apologist for terrrorism.

NinjaKirby · 10-05-2017 05:28PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with a discussion of the definition of terrorism, except that the definition is, in fact, completely uncontroversial. The only thing that ever changes is our willingness to apply that definition consistently. Your own definition seems to me to be perfectly fine, except for the part about taking responsibility for the attack. I've never seen that included in a definition before (I'll come back to that though).

Regarding the BBC's use or non-use of the term, I'm not exactly why that would matter to this discussion. Either the plot was terrorist or it wasn't. Whether the BBC call it terrorist is really irrelevant to that question. Where it IS relevant, is in a broader discussion of WHY the definition of terrorism is so controversial in the first place. The willingness of mainstream media to use the term "terrorist" is, obviously, very important in terms of how our understanding of these things is shaped. But it doesn't change the definition. The only question is whether the act fits the definition. I would submit that it does.

To return to the question of taking responsibility. One of the phenomena that has emerged lately is radical Islamic "lone wolf" attacks.
These are frequently claimed by ISIS, but most analysts agree that in many cases there are no provable links to ISIS. Now, it could be ISIS inspired,
but it also could be that ISIS like taking responsibility without having had to do anything whatsoever. Anyway the question is, if ISIS did NOT take responsibility, by your definition these acts would not be terrorist. By the FBI's they would.

I agree with everything you've said here.

It just seems odd to me that sometimes when a poster disagrees with something or maybe even just questions something there's a certain reaction that involves implying that the poster is maybe not the best kind of person.

You know the type of comment...

"Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism."

"I find it unfathomable someone would try to claim this wasn't a terrorist plot tbh. ...but the alt right are always right"

Peregrinus · 10-05-2017 05:36PM

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I agree with everything you've said here.

It just seems odd to me that sometimes when a poster disagrees with something or maybe even just questions something there's a certain reaction that involves implying that the poster is maybe not the best kind of person.

You know the type of comment...

"Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism."

"I find it unfathomable someone would try to claim this wasn't a terrorist plot tbh. ...but the alt right are always right"

Well, I was perhaps a bit strong. But 511 himself proposed a definition of terrorism ("attack on innocent civilians for a political end") which clearly encompassed this case, but without missing a beat went on to say that it was "just an assassination plot" becuase the perpetrators beleived their victims were "complicit in the destruction of German culture". The implication is that if actions which would otherwise be terrorist are justified by an appeal to that belief, they cease to be terrorism. How is that not an apology for terrorism?

Beyondgone · 10-05-2017 05:46PM

GLaDOS wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldiers-false-flag-arrests-refugees-assassinate-plot-far-right-left-wing-politicians-terror-a7726676.html

A second soldier bungler involved has been arrested

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.

I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

wes · 10-05-2017 05:52PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.
I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

Violent nationalism can also be terrorism........

Also, in a democracy, they can vote for there leaders like everyone else. These lads are no different than any other terrorists, and the ambivalence on what was clearly an act of terror is rather disturbing.

At the end of the day, it was always inevitable that White supremacists, that White supremacists would increase there terrorism, as far to many choose to ignore the danger, ever after notable attacks in Norway, Canada, the US and Germany, as well as other attacks on refugees around Europe as well. There world view is remarkable similar to Islamic extremists, with want to return things to a pure, near utopian golden age, that never existed as they imagine it.

Beyondgone · 10-05-2017 06:23PM

wes wrote: »

Violent nationalism can also be terrorism........

Also, in a democracy, they can vote for there leaders like everyone else. These lads are no different than any other terrorists, and the ambivalence on what was clearly an act of terror is rather disturbing.

.

Is it? Disturbing how?

I'm ambivalent when it comes to "Muslim Terrorism" too if that helps. I can see their viewpoint(however batsh1t I may regard it to be) - they have a strongly held ideology and use violence to promote/pursue that cause. Hence, because I can "see their point" while not agreeing with their point, I find myself ambivalent towards it.

Is it their use of "violence" vis a vis my "ambivalence" that disturbs you?

Well we in the West routinely use violence. Pretty much every day as it happens. We bomb, shoot, use missiles etc etc. We're quite the violent puppies when it suits us, so to say "Ohh, all violence is bad, no one use violence" is quite silly really. We're experts in extreme violence. I'm again, ambivalent to that too. If we ("The West")elect to drop all violent measures as a matter of principle, then, erm, things might not end that well for us/might work out fantastic - Internationally. Hence, ambivalent. If that clarifies things..

Samaris · 10-05-2017 06:40PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.
I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

Christ on a bike.

I am absolutely 100% against assassinating people for a random objective. I can understand "we must take out this leader to avoid having to go to war and kill hundreds or thousands of civilians", although I'd be dubious about the justification.

But to support (or even "be ambivalent about/jury is out on") murder for the sake of blaming an ethnic group so that the general population turns against them and/or visits violence on them to drive them out... (and whatever about pity being rendered to those who use a term correctly, okay-doke then)

See "Christ on a bike" above.

wes · 10-05-2017 07:01PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Is it? Disturbing how? I'm ambivalent when it comes to "Muslim Terrorism" too if that helps. I can see their viewpoint(however batsh1t I may regard it to be) - they have a strongly held ideology and use violence to promote/pursue that cause. Hence, because I can "see their point" while not agreeing with their point, I find myself ambivalent towards it.

Is it their use of "violence" vis a vis my "ambivalence" that disturbs you? Well we in the West routinely use violence. Pretty much every day as it happens. We bomb, shoot, use missiles etc etc. We're quite the violent puppies when it suits us, so to say "Ohh, all violence is bad, no one use violence" is quite silly really. We're experts in extreme violence. I'm again, ambivalent to that too. If we ("The West")elect to drop all violent measures as a matter of principle, then, erm, things might not end that well for us/might work out fantastic - Internationally. Hence, ambivalent. If that clarifies things..

Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly understand someone elses pov, but when it comes to white supremacists and ISIS, and there ilk, its pretty clear that there insane, and that there aims aren't legitimate, unlike say a national liberation movement, whose aims I can understand (e.g. self determination, or ending apartheid), but whose tactics I would disagree with.

ISIS and white supremacists aims are pure societies, at the cost of the destruction of anyone who doesn't fit into that. These aren't legitimate aims imho.

Realt Dearg Sec · 10-05-2017 07:03PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism.

Could you explain how you distinguish these two?

Beyondgone · 10-05-2017 09:59PM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Could you explain how you distinguish these two?

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

Allah snackbar · 10-05-2017 10:17PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Why change the thread title when the thread is about a terrorist assassination plot in Germany, as is the OP? It would make more sense to get back on topic.

You don't really understand sarcasm do you ? :rolleyes:

MonkieSocks · 10-05-2017 10:44PM

it would only be a german terrorist attack if they shouted "Vorsprung Durka Durka"

B_Wayne · 10-05-2017 10:46PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

That's a weird definition, the intent of the assassination attempt was to cause terror and to advance the agenda of modern day Nazis. Some assassinations are simply to kill a person, this one had a clear political aim and was very much so with the intent of terrorising the public.

The fact that you are uncertain on whether you agree with their goal is deeply worrying. You do sympathise with their motives. You sympathise with a group that wish to advance hatred...

Really Interested · 10-05-2017 10:49PM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

What if a group shot a world leader, in the hope that the death would be assumed to be the work of another group, leading to a war where many die. By your definition that would be terror.

CalamariFritti · 10-05-2017 11:03PM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

France and Germany will have Civil unrest within next decade or so you would fear. Merkel is not going down well with lot of Germans.

Ye that's why they going to elect her into office the 4th time in a row.

Beyondgone · 10-05-2017 11:31PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

That's a weird definition, the intent of the assassination attempt was to cause terror and to advance the agenda of modern day Nazis. Some assassinations are simply to kill a person, this one had a clear political aim and was very much so with the intent of terrorising the public.

The fact that you are uncertain on whether you agree with their goal is deeply worrying. You do sympathise with their motives. You sympathise with a group that wish to advance hatred...

Never said that though. I said I was ambivalent - only in as much as I can take their point of view on board and come to the conclusion that, for them, with their outlook, this would be regarded as a good move.

"For them" being the operative word. Same as I can take on board the fact that for ISIS, an attack in Europe would be "a good thing". I've no desire to hop into either camp, but I can comprehend where they are coming from.

It's called "seeing things from another persons point of view" and is a wondrous talent. Pity more wouldn't try it. Might be less need for violent nationalists or terrorists, or both.

For all any of us know, they might be right btw, or ISIS might be right, or the Liberals might be right - only time and how the next few decades play out will tell.

B_Wayne · 11-05-2017 12:09AM

My god, you are full of rubbish... Do you also hold the view that the KKK might turn out to be right?

AnGaelach · 11-05-2017 12:23AM

As a far-right extremist I look forward to the inevitable Bundeswehr coup.

Jamiekelly · 11-05-2017 03:15AM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

I think you just clearly demonstrated that you don't know what terrorism is.

But that's alright you seem to have quite a solid backlog of posts trying to defend the indefensible, or at the very least purposely blurring the lines.

Like in another thread regarding torture you were more than willing to excuse torture against those that you think deserved it, all the while trying to pass it off as "justice" not torture.

If an international terrorist organisation shoots and kills one elected representative then that is a terrorist attack on the principle of democracy.

Remember MP Jo Cox getting killed by that nutter in the UK who was yelling "Britain first" while stabbing her to death? That's terrorism to me, the English dictionary and the majority of people who take democracy seriously.

Whether he shouts Allah hu akbar or Britain first is virtually irrelevant as the result is the same regardless. Blood spilled, democracy undermined and a successful rallying cry for other wannabe terrorists.

If your only distinction between terrorism and "violent nationalism" is body count then you seriously need to realign your moral compass.

I enjoyed your use of "popped across the pond" and "nip over to". Language always gives people away, especially when they make terrorist hypotheticals sound like a trip down to the neighbours or to the shop. Shows just how flippant you are when it comes to human life.

Peregrinus · 11-05-2017 04:46AM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

Not really; this isn't much help.

You're telling us that you'd label the first act "violent nationalism" and the second "terrorism", but you're offering no clue as to why, in each case.

Plus, you're kind of assuming that if something can properly be called "violent nationalism" then it isn't terrorism, and vice versa. But you, again, offer no clue as to why you think this and, on the face of it, it's nonsense. Why can't violent nationalists employ terrorist tactics? Why can't terrorists espouse nationalism?

I'm sure it's not your intention, but the impression you're creating is that you're averse to applying the label "terrorism" to acts for whose motivation you have some sympathy or understanding. That may not be an accurate summary of your position, but unless you can produce a rational, coherent account of the distinction your making here, that is the impression you are going to create.

Beyondgone · 11-05-2017 06:24AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not really; this isn't much help.

You're telling us that you'd label the first act "violent nationalism" and the second "terrorism", but you're offering no clue as to why, in each case.

Plus, you're kind of assuming that if something can properly be called "violent nationalism" then it isn't terrorism, and vice versa. But you, again, offer no clue as to why you think this and, on the face of it, it's nonsense. Why can't violent nationalists employ terrorist tactics? Why can't terrorists espouse nationalism?

I'm sure it's not your intention, but the impression you're creating is that you're averse to applying the label "terrorism" to acts for whose motivation you have some sympathy or understanding. That may not be an accurate summary of your position, but unless you can produce a rational, coherent account of the distinction your making here, that is the impression you are going to create.

Well, I did offer clues Peregrinus, I actually gave examples. I did go Googling for "Links that provide cast-iron clarification of Beyondgones mildly indifferent and dispassionate thoughts on the differences between Violent Nationalism and Terrorism" but drew a blank I'm afraid. I will continue searching and if anything relevant pops up, you can be assured I will edit this appropriately.

On your second point - "The Averse" -I will default to the "No Speculation" rule applied to other similar Threads as to the perpetrators motives/backgrounds and therefore my condemnation/lack of condemnation of said Perpetrators. As it stands, there is a view as to their motivations/actions being put forward, in the media, one to which I have expressed neutral ambivalence.

Until "they" offer a full public confession/are convicted in a Court of Law, for all you or I know they may well be patsies/falsely accused/double agents/triple agents/innocent/motivated by ideologies hitherto unknown/guilty as sin/members of an obscure Religious cult/insane etc etc.

As a Rational thinker yourself, I will presume, rightly or wrongly, that you would be as reluctant as the next person to accept the first populist and no doubt sensationalist account that emerges after emotive events such as these?

Peregrinus · 11-05-2017 06:39AM

Beyondgone wrote: »

Well, I did offer clues Peregrinus, I actually gave examples. I did go Googling for "Links that provide cast-iron clarification of Beyondgones mildly indifferent and dispassionate thoughts on the differences between Violent Nationalism and Terrorism" but drew a blank I'm afraid. I will continue searching and if anything relevant pops up, you can be assured I will edit this appropriately.

You're missing my point. You're presenting "violent nationalism" and "terriorism" as alternatives; as mutually exclusive. We get that you think this; further examples won't help us to grasp that point any more. What's missing is any account of why you think this. On the face of it, there's absolutely no reason why a nationalist agenda shouldn't be violently pursued through terrorist tactics, so characterising a particular action as "violent nationalism" does nothing at all to suggest that it's not terrorist.

Obviously, you don't agree with that view, but I'm mystified as to why you don't agree, and you're not offering any reason or explanation.

Beyondgone wrote: »

On your second point - "The Averse" -I will default to the "No Speculation" rule applied to other similar Threads as to the perpetrators motives/backgrounds and therefore my condemnation/lack of condemnation of said Perpetrators. As it stands, there is a view as to their motivations/actions being put forward, in the media, one to which I have expressed neutral ambivalence.

Until "they" offer a full public confession/are convicted in a Court of Law, for all you or I know they may well be patsies/falsely accused/double agents/triple agents/innocent/motivated by ideologies hitherto unknown/guilty as sin/members of an obscure Religious cult/insane etc etc.

As a Rational thinker yourself, I will presume, rightly or wrongly, that you would be as reluctant as the next person to accept the first populist and no doubt sensationalist account that emerges after emotive events such as these?

Oh, absolutely.

But, as a rational thinker yourself, you will agree, won't you, that people who are patsies/falsely accused/double agents/triple agents/innocent/motivated by ideologies hitherto unknown/guilty as sin/members of an obscure Religious cult/insane can all employ terrorist tactics, can't they? What, after all, would stop them from doing so? So we don't have to wait patiently for an authoritative determination as to whether they are sane, patsies, double agents or whatever before we can take a view about whether what they did was a terrorist action.

The incident we're discussing here, in fact, provides a useful illustration. Imagine a violent atrocity against noncombatants perpetrated by Islamists. Terrorism, right? Now imagine the same atrocity, but perpetrated by neo-fascists posing as Islamists in the hope that Muslims will be blamed for it. Still terrorism, right? As it happens, in the second instance the atrocity is perpetrated by people who are double agents, and who are quite possibly patsies manipulated by others (this is true for a lot of terorrist activies, by the way), and who are quite possibly deranged. But we didn't need to know any of that to spot that the action was terrorist in nature.

The_Kew_Tour · 11-05-2017 06:44AM

So Lonely wrote: »

Germany needs a new Hitler.

They already have

The_Kew_Tour · 11-05-2017 06:45AM

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ye that's why they going to elect her into office the 4th time in a row.

See you in September

Peregrinus · 11-05-2017 08:57AM

Merkel may be defeated in September - the bookies' odds are currently pointing to this as the more likely outcome - but any celebration on the part of the right will have a forced and desperate air. Her problem is rapidly rising support for the left - specifically, the Social Democrats. As with elsewhere in Europe, the Trumpista right appears to have peaked somewhere between the Brexit vote and the Trump victory, and to have been declining since.

Jelle1880 · 11-05-2017 09:31AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

They already have

lol what.

wes · 11-05-2017 11:04AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

lol what.

Some on here have lost the run of themselves imo.

Its pretty nutty in a thread about Neo-Nazis plotting terrorism, we have people calling Merkel Hitler, as opposed to the bloody Neo-Nazis. The boardsie far right have lost the plot on this one, when they defacto side with Neo-Nazis, the people who actually share Hitlers ideology.

Billy86 · 11-05-2017 11:26AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Ye that's why they going to elect her into office the 4th time in a row.

See you in September

Is that a Le Pen quote?

The_Kew_Tour · 11-05-2017 11:28AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Is that a Le Pen quote?

If its my quote then I have no idea, but I was referring to the German Election on the 24th September 2017

Terrorist Assassination Plot in Germany

Comments