Terrorist Assassination Plot in Germany

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 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.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

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

See you in September

Billy86 wrote: »

Is that a Le Pen quote?

again you may have not been quoting me

but I googled in "See you in September" and "See you in September Le Pen" and got nothing about quotes from Le Pen. Best I got was about some song that has those lyrics on the former.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Honestly I thought the post that was saying Merkel is Hitler was not exactly meant to be taken seriously.

Now, maybe it was but for me the comparison seems so absurd that I simply CAN'T take it seriously and so it seems like more of a joke than an honest opinion.

I take you haven't been on the Internet that long or something. Look at the new posters that have come on this thread, calling Neo-Nazis the resistance. Go read stormfront or thedonald subreddit on reddit (which actually started out as a joke). These guys are actually serious.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I guess for me I'm just not seeing this alt-right boogie man that you seem to be finding around every corner.

I mean, as far as I can tell "alt-right" kind of just seems like a re-branding of far-right and in online circles it genuinely feels like alt-right just means American-right.

2 new posters in this thread already supporting Neo-Nazis. They seem to show up pretty quick to these kind of threads.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I'm just feeling like there are certain topic now where "SJW" and "Alt-Right" are the only options and anyone with even a different opinion is likely to find themselves snarkily branded one or the other.

The far-right is certainly on the rise and eventually that will be a serious concern but it comes across like you are just chomping at the bit to connect any kind of disagreement to Neo-Nazis, Alt-Right in some way.

And it seems to me that, you are happy to ignore the obvious, even while acknowledging that it will eventually be a problem. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Again, 2 new posters referring to Neo-Nazi terrorists as the resistance, and its what 5/6 pages into the thread. I think your being rather naive, considering the thread is about Neo-Nazis plotting to kill people, how is that not already a serious concern exactly?

Billy86 wrote: »

Where did I call you a racist?

You said I made a quote from Le Pen.

Dont start pretending now, you know exactly what you were trying to say. Now show me where this is their Big Slogan

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You said I made a quote from Le Pen.

Dont start pretending now, you know exactly what you were trying to say. Now show me where this is their Big Slogan

No, he made a sarcastic comment about your post.

Loads of the alt-right fools on Reddit were saying things like "See you in May" to people who did not support Le Pen and her politics.

Not everything is a personal attack.

Billy86 wrote: »

I pointed out that we were hearing all about le pen winning the French election being a supposedly foregone conclusion. So no, I did not call you a racist in any way shape or form, no matter how eager you seem to be to twist logic into playing the victim and offended snowflake.

Link please

Billy86 wrote: »

Link for what?

It being "Le Pen Quote"

Your words not mine

If you didn't think there was any sarcasm in it, wouldn't you just have thought it was a genuine question?

Instead of a statement.