Also In The News

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

No idea, has it ever been audited?

 

The print media you might be right, I don't read enough to say. In terms of organisations like the BBC though I think if anything it's the other way around and they prefer to hit the side of caution when it's a "non-white" perpetrator.

Certainly a good question.

 

I do think that certain areas of the print media in the UK and talking heads across the pond are often keen to paint most every white supremacist as a mentally ill lone wolf and every Islamist as a member of a nefarious global conspiracy, which I've never really gotten because IMO the objectives and methods of both those types of attacker are exactly the same, the only difference being the ethnicity.

 

I don't have any hard data on whether or not and how much such double standards go across the media board though.

[ealingfox]

19 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Which has yet to be proven.

Throwing around your conspiracy theories does nothing to alleviate the issue. It just adds unnecessary subjective hot air.

Yes, he did publish video rants aimed at foreigners. We've yet to see whether he was part of a larger network or not and whether he had aides.

 

As far as I can tell, the idiot chose his targets randomly. First a shisha bar, then another bar, then a third. He then drives home, kills his bedridden mother, then himself.

He had a pretty decent upbringing and career, and was not known to the German intelligence community. Just asking myself where that anger is coming from, what the trigger was.

 

By the sounds of it, he does come across as a mentally disturbed person, a paranoid incel at odds with society on the whole.

We need to wait for the end of the investigation to see what the authorities have uncovered.

 

Three shisha bars in succession is random in your eyes?

[MC Prussian]

20 hours ago, hejammy said:

I do question why this is not in the "terrorist" thread and also whenever an "Islamic" terrorist commits an atrocity why is it that some members will always have a multitude of opinions and comments but when it's not then said persons seem not to really care. Really is quite sad and apparent. 

Because Islamic terrorists tend to commit their acts more often as part of a larger group (in the name of religion), do so in groups more often (which hints at a network) than deranged white loners with a minority complex and other mental issues.

[MC Prussian]

49 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Three shisha bars in succession is random in your eyes?

It wasn't three shisha bars.

[Finnaldo]

54 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Because Islamic terrorists tend to commit their acts more often as part of a larger group (in the name of religion), do so in groups more often (which hints at a network) than deranged white loners with a minority complex and other mental issues.

That’s likely because the leading historical Neo-Nazi texts (Siege, The Turner Diaries etc.) have always advocated smaller cell or ‘lone wolf’ attacks. In fact the editor of Siege, James Mason, is the advisor to the current Atomwaffen terrorist cell and they’ve had a slew of individual attacks and murders over recent years.

 

Islamist terror and Neo-Nazi terror are two different beasts that came of two different circumstances. Just because it’s more decentralised makes it no less a terrorist act.

[hejammy]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

He has been described as a terrorist hasn't he? Then they'll find out if he is a "lone wolf" or connected to a wider network.

 

There have been "lone wolf" Islamists as well. The Leytonstone attacker being one.

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Because Islamic terrorists tend to commit their acts more often as part of a larger group (in the name of religion), do so in groups more often (which hints at a network) than deranged white loners with a minority complex and other mental issues.

Here lies the problem. You have both dismissed these as lone wolf or white loners, they commit acts of terror the same as terrorists who commit acts in the name of religion, both ideologies, very different yet still both ideologies. You both have tendencies to do this on a consistent basis and it's very apparent which side you 'sympathise' with more than the other. Both are disgusting acts of mindless terror. Whether they are identified as lone wolfs or cells or organised groups simply they cause terror to normal people. 

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

It wasn't three shisha bars.

This again shows your apparent need to be dismissive towards this cowardly act. It's quite irrelevant if it was 2 or 3 the point being it wasn't random and it was definetly intended to cause terror. 

Edited 21 February 2020 by hejammy

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, hejammy said:

 

Here lies the problem. You have both dismissed these as lone wolf or white loners, they commit acts of terror the same as terrorists who commit acts in the name of religion, both ideologies, very different yet still both ideologies. You both have tendencies to do this on a consistent basis and it's very apparent which side you 'sympathise' with more than the other. Both are disgusting acts of mindless terror. Whether they are identified as lone wolfs or cells or organised groups simply they cause terror to normal people. 

 

This again shows your apparent need to be dismissive towards this cowardly act. It's quite irrelevant if it was 2 or 3 the point being it wasn't random and it was definetly intended to cause terror. 

I don't sympathize with either side, I find them both abhorrent.

 

I just think it's odd that some people would like to mingle the two and call them equal when they're not.

 

"Terror" to me is something on a much grander scale, and that's by no means an excuse for the acts of violence these deranged white men commit.

 

As for the German guy shooting people not acting randomly - again, we'll have to wait and see what the investigation uncovers.

Whether he decided to cause "terror" or not, that's your interpretation. I'm saying he wanted to set a sign and go down with a sense of empowerment over others, albeit a very sick and twisted one.

[bovril]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't sympathize with either side, I find them both abhorrent.

 

I just think it's odd that some people would like to mingle the two and call them equal when they're not.

Well the Met Police seem to think far-right terrorism is the fastest growing threat in the UK, so maybe you're right about them not being equal. 

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

Well the Met Police seem to think far-right terrorism is the fastest growing threat in the UK, so maybe you're right about them not being equal. 

Terrorism has a hint of organized crime to me. That's just me.

Again, we'll have to wait and see whether the German attacker acted on his own behalf or with the help of a larger network.

 

So, in short, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

"Fastest-growing threat" sounds spectacular on paper, I'd like to see the bigger context. It still isn't the greatest threat to individual countries as far as organized crime or religious terror is concerned.

But I'm sure it makes for great headlines.

[hejammy]

25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't sympathize with either side, I find them both abhorrent.

 

I just think it's odd that some people would like to mingle the two and call them equal when they're not.

 

"Terror" to me is something on a much grander scale, and that's by no means an excuse for the acts of violence these deranged white men commit.

 

As for the German guy shooting people not acting randomly - again, we'll have to wait and see what the investigation uncovers.

Whether he decided to cause "terror" or not, that's your interpretation. I'm saying he wanted to set a sign and go down with a sense of empowerment over others, albeit a very sick and twisted one.

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

But in your opinion the German attack doesn't fit this criteria? He or they do not want to kill people to scare others like them or for revenge or for whatever reason he had? He doesn't incite prejudice? Not equal in what way exactly? One is worse than the other? One reason is less abohrent than the other? Please do enlighten us as to why they are not equal? You think that there is not a grand scale of far right terror? Why do you use the word deranged when it comes to this attacker but do not describe other attacks like this? Are they not equally deranged? Uneducated? Misinformed? Have mental issues? 

 

[MC Prussian]

23 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

But in your opinion the German attack doesn't fit this criteria? He or they do not want to kill people to scare others like them or for revenge or for whatever reason he had? He doesn't incite prejudice? Not equal in what way exactly? One is worse than the other? One reason is less abohrent than the other? Please do enlighten us as to why they are not equal? You think that there is not a grand scale of far right terror? Why do you use the word deranged when it comes to this attacker but do not describe other attacks like this? Are they not equally deranged? Uneducated? Misinformed? Have mental issues? 

 

 

You fail to quote the more crucial part of that excerpt on "terrorism" - it even comes first:

"..., governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon and legally binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged."

 

What we often see in psychology is the copycat phenomenon, where people with mental issues feel emboldened by previous acts of violence committed by people of similar ilk.

There can be videos or letters, but since the Hanau shooter and other cowards tend to kill themselves before they get caught, we'll never know the whole truth, as they cannot be questioned any longer.

 

Did the Hanau shooter follow a particular religion? Not as far as we know.

Was he member of a particular extremist organization or party? Not as far as we know.

Did he appear to have extremist thoughts or motives? As far as we know today, not until recently. He led a pretty decent and normal life, maybe a bit of a loner, but he had a career, made good money.

 

What we're doing now is dancing around a particular term, a definition.The term "terrorism" has been hijacked to serve particular political agendas, among other things.

I think we can both agree that any loss of life under these circumstances is tragic.

I'm just not buying into the media hype and the headlines.

 

How much of a threat are mass shootings really on the whole? So far, we've had two mass shootings in Europe, both in Germany. One of them was over a dispute in a German family. That's 17 people dead.

Just to put the Hanau attack into context - in Januar 2020 alone, more than 1200 Syrian civilians have died as part of the ongoing war over there. That's in one month only, and in one country. Not really much talking about that in the media, was there?

But then along comes another home-grown mass shooter and low and behold people go in a frenzy again...

 

We seem to have this very odd media relationship with lone white gunmen these days.

 

Edited 21 February 2020 by MC Prussian

[hejammy]

11 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

You fail to quote the more crucial part of that excerpt on "terrorism" - it even comes first:

"..., governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon and legally binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged."

 

What we often see in psychology is the copycat phenomenon, where people with mental issues feel emboldened by previous acts of violence committed by people of similar ilk.

There can be videos or letters, but since the Hanau shooter and other cowards tend to kill themselves before they get caught, we'll never know the whole truth, as they cannot be questioned any longer.

 

Did the Hanau shooter follow a particular religion? Not as far as we know.

Was he member of a particular extremist organization or party? Not as far as we know.

Did he appear to have extremist thoughts or motives? As far as we know today, not until recently. He led a pretty decent and normal life, maybe a bit of a loner, but he had a career, made good money.

 

What we're doing now is dancing around a particular term, a definition.The term "terrorism" has been hijacked to serve particular political agendas, among other things.

I think we can both agree that any loss of life under these circumstances is tragic.

I'm just not buying into the media hype and the headlines.

 

How much of a threat are mass shootings really on the whole? So far, we've had two mass shootings in Europe, both in Germany. One of them was over a dispute in a German family. That's 17 people dead.

Just to put the Hanau attack into context - in Januar 2020 alone, more than 1200 Syrian civilians have died as part of the ongoing war over there. That's in one month only, and in one country. Not really much talking about that in the media, was there?

But then along comes another home-grown mass shooter and low and behold people go in a frenzy again...

 

We seem to have this very odd media relationship with lone white gunmen these days.

 

Such a long post only to avoid answering any questions....  I give up 

[Finnaldo]

12 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Such a long post only to avoid answering any questions....  I give up 

MC has a habit of furthering some very... questionable narratives with very little clue as to why. 
 

I’ve pointed out to him in my post that White Supremacist terror has always had a modus operandi of decentralised terror attacks and there’s plenty of well known literature that backs that and that there’s notorious contemporary terrorist organisations that follow this method. But that’s not in line with his worldview so it gets ignored.

 

Whites just can’t be terrorist mate (unless they were left-wing, of course).

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, hejammy said:

Such a long post only to avoid answering any questions....  I give up 

I did give you an answer, smack in the middle, right there. It all boils down to how you define "terrorism".

That's about it.

[hejammy]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I did give you an answer, smack in the middle, right there. It all boils down to how you define "terrorism".

That's about it.

OK I'll list the questions to make it easier for you, which cannot all be answered by 'what you define terrorism as' (which incidentally should just be 'an act designed to create terror amongst a group of people')

 

in your opinion the German attack doesn't fit this criteria?

 

He or they do not want to kill people to scare others or for revenge or for whatever reason he had?

 

He doesn't incite prejudice?

 

Not equal in what way exactly?

 

One is worse than the other?

 

One reason is less abohrent than the other?

 

Please do enlighten us as to why they are not equal?

 

You think that there is not a grand scale of far right terror?

 

Why do you use the word deranged when it comes to this attacker but do not describe other attacks like this?

 

Are they not equally deranged, uneducated, misinformed or have mental issues? 

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

48 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

MC has a habit of furthering some very... questionable narratives with very little clue as to why. 
 

I’ve pointed out to him in my post that White Supremacist terror has always had a modus operandi of decentralised terror attacks and there’s plenty of well known literature that backs that and that there’s notorious contemporary terrorist organisations that follow this method. But that’s not in line with his worldview so it gets ignored.

 

Whites just can’t be terrorist mate (unless they were left-wing, of course).

I don't ignore White Supremacists and I don't condone their actions. Any life taken by force is a tragedy.

I'm trying to put it all into context. Following the Hanau attack, we're currently seeing another media hype, trying to connect dots where there aren't any.

Again, we need to wait and see whether he was part of a larger network or working on his own, otherwise, there's no point in talking about "decentralization" in terms of organisation. I suppose when you're getting more and more paranoid and/or delusional on an individual level like he did, you start to take everything that fits ones worldview on the internet for granted.

 

Maybe one day, you'll be able to define my worldview for me.

 

 

 

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, hejammy said:

OK I'll list the questions to make it easier for you, which cannot all be answered by 'what you define terrorism as' (which incidentally should just be 'an act designed to create terror amongst a group of people')

 

in your opinion the German attack doesn't fit this criteria?

 

He or they do not want to kill people to scare others or for revenge or for whatever reason he had?

 

He doesn't incite prejudice?

 

Not equal in what way exactly?

 

One is worse than the other?

 

One reason is less abohrent than the other?

 

Please do enlighten us as to why they are not equal?

 

You think that there is not a grand scale of far right terror?

 

Why do you use the word deranged when it comes to this attacker but do not describe other attacks like this?

 

Are they not equally deranged, uneducated, misinformed or have mental issues? 

 

That's a ton of questions.

I'll say it again, with regards to his true motives and "inciting prejudice", all that remains is mostly guesswork, as the puzzle will never be complete without his own testimony in person. Sadly, that option is now gone. The coward shot himself and his own mother.

 

Terrorism to me takes place on a much grander scale, coordinated, over a large period of time (consistently), mainly based on religious beliefs.

 

As for the "grand scale" of far-right activities, that's up for the authorities to define. I'm sure, however, that we need to be vigilant and always remember history, so that it doesn't repeat itself. We continue to fail to address why violent attacks on the far-right exist in the first place, how we've come this far and how pertinent of an issue it truly is.

 

17 people lost to mass shootings in Europe (both in Germany) so far this year is 17 too many. Still, the number fades with the amount of people killed in the name of a "righteous" war in Syria, for example. So, yes, terror in the name of religion at present is much, much worse in comparison than the odd deranged white man killing innocent people in bars - just based on the sheer number of victims. Btw, I have no issues calling jihadi terrorists "deranged" as well, because they are.

Large parts of the media have a tendency to one-sided reporting with regards to homegrown wrongdoers, jump to conclusions and blow up issues based on symptoms, when we ought to look at the cause instead. 

I think we as a society can and should improve, I just don't see the media trying to assist here at all. Headlines and buzzwords is all that seems to count these days.

Edited 22 February 2020 by MC Prussian

[Wymsey]

Greta Thunberg is to participate in a Bristol schoolstrike.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51597922

[Finnaldo]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't ignore White Supremacists and I don't condone their actions. Any life taken by force is a tragedy.

I'm trying to put it all into context. Following the Hanau attack, we're currently seeing another media hype, trying to connect dots where there aren't any.

Again, we need to wait and see whether he was part of a larger network or working on his own, otherwise, there's no point in talking about "decentralization" in terms of organisation. I suppose when you're getting more and more paranoid and/or delusional on an individual level like he did, you start to take everything that fits ones worldview on the internet for granted.

 

Maybe one day, you'll be able to define my worldview for me.

 

 

 

He shot up two shisha bars in an area with a high migrant demographic, other than his mother all victims were immigrants. I really don’t think it’s hard to assume this was a far-right backed attack. If a guy called Abdul shot up two cafes in London we’re all going to assume it’s an Islamic fundamentalist terror attack. 
 

The reason I question your worldview is because previously when I’ve bought up the increasing trend of far right terror attacks as another poster has in this thread, you went straight on some tangent about how we’ll have to wait and see if there’s a rise in Leftist terror attacks.

 

You seem to give more leeway to Neo-Nazi terrorists than moderate left wing politicians, which is what I find so baffling.

[RoboFox]

The Sun is dying a slow death.

 

Couldn't be happening to a nicer publication. 

 

Edited 24 February 2020 by RoboFox

[Beechey]

9 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

The Sun is dying a slow death.

 

Couldn't be happening to a nicer publication. 

 

Speed it up.

[ozleicester]

[RoboFox]

17 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Wow, kids today are boring. 

 

Also, I was putting in at least 5 hours of gaming in by about 1993. Way ahead of the curve.

[Wymsey]

The locations in Leicester where new houses could be built.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/83-leicester-sites-council-bosses-3874734

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51612884

 

A law allowing parents to terminate pregnancies where the foetus has Down's syndrome at any time up until its birth should be changed, campaigners say.

 

An interesting news topic to discuss I think. Personally, against the idea of changing the law. A friend of the family has a child with down's, he's a lovely kid without doubt but the chances of him leading his own independent life are slim to none. Think it's fair to say it takes a certain type of extraordinary person to be able to cope with the issues raised, but just because they are able to cope does that make it fair to assume everyone should be able to? 

 

Interested to see how much traction this gains. The abortion law is fairly old now and perceptions have changed a fair bit regarding disabilities since then imo.