Terrorist attack in Berlin

Bitching, whining, complaining, and general negativity

Moderator: Bork

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4640
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Nachos » Mon Dec 19, 18:06 2016

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38373867

This is literally three streets from where I live. Thank god none of my family or friends were injured but my goodness. Fuck terrorists. All they want to do is harm and provoke and for fucks sake, the Russian ambassador to Turkey was also shot today??? Fuck this world.

People, I can't anymore. Why does this shit keep happening?
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

User avatar
octarineoboe
member
member
Posts: 951
Joined: Mon May 28, 21:25 2012
Location: Midwestern US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby octarineoboe » Mon Dec 19, 20:30 2016

I'm glad you and those you love are OK.

I don't know what's going on or why anymore. I feel like we're living in fear, and that means the terrorists have won. I wish there was something more I could do or say, but I've been feeling pretty hopeless since the US election. This just deepens that feeling.

User avatar
Bork
member
member
Posts: 8204
Joined: Tue Sep 2, 11:44 2003
Location: wherever I am, I'm probably sitting on my ass
Contact:

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Bork » Mon Dec 19, 21:20 2016

Very relieved to hear that you're okay.

What I hate most about this is that news like this doesn't even faze me at this point. Like, freaking of course there's been another terrorist attack somewhere because apparently that's just the world that we live in today.
Bork is too lazy to bother thinking up a witty signature. :polarbear:

iamthegate
member
member
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 17, 10:26 2015

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby iamthegate » Tue Dec 20, 1:23 2016

I don't know how to respond anymore. I'm not afraid, as in, I'm not going to change the things I do. But fuck... It's so close. (I live in the Netherlands)

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby rowan » Tue Dec 20, 9:56 2016

You posting yesterday was how I first heard about it. :( I'm glad you're all right, but the whole world is burning and IDEK anymore. I mean, we (humanity as a whole) just can't seem to get our shit together.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5037
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Sonic# » Tue Dec 20, 12:08 2016

I'm glad you're okay Nachos.


What I hate most about this is that news like this doesn't even faze me at this point. Like, freaking of course there's been another terrorist attack somewhere because apparently that's just the world that we live in today.


This. It seems like a statistical certitude that an attack will happen. Setting aside the more complex thoughts here, I'm concerned both for the people affected and for how that attack will be politicized.

User avatar
Tweek
member
member
Posts: 4979
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 3:02 2002
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Tweek » Tue Dec 20, 12:40 2016

I'm glad that you and those close to you weren't harmed.

It is depressing how such things keep happening.
ARG!!! I NEED COFFEE!!!

User avatar
melsbells
member
member
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 6:45 2014
Location: Finland

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby melsbells » Tue Dec 20, 13:58 2016

Sonic# wrote:Setting aside the more complex thoughts here, I'm concerned both for the people affected and for how that attack will be politicized.
I hate that my immediate reaction is to think about how something like this will be used.

Nacho's, I'm really glad you're okay.

User avatar
rinn

Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Dec 2, 10:03 2016
Contact:

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby rinn » Tue Dec 20, 16:19 2016

I'm so sorry for that happening so close to your home, but I'm glad you and family are okay.

this kind of news doesn't seem to faze me now either. I just feel so helpless and wish there was more that I could do. it's like watching dominoes fall.

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Jan 14, 13:52 2017

Nachos wrote:People, I can't anymore. Why does this shit keep happening?

This is what happens when you indiscriminately let in people from a part of the world that is notoriously anti-Western, and don't screen them like you should be. If no one has ever watched this video, it pretty much dispels the myth of the "peaceful immigrant population."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5037
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Sonic# » Sat Jan 14, 15:24 2017

^ I challenge the premise. How could any one video dispel the fact that immigrant populations are in most cases less dangerous? The Wikipedia entry on the issue is pretty valuable; pertaining to Europe, one study from 2015 includes this sober assessment:

Immigration and crime: evidence from victimization data wrote:Our empirical findings show that an increase in immigration does not affect crime victimization, but it is associated with an increase in the fear of crime, the latter being consistently and positively correlated with the natives’ unfavourable attitude toward immigrants. Our results reveal a misconception of the link between immigration and crime among European natives.


That's why I tend to dismiss videos like this. When it comes to actual evidence of causality between immigrant populations and crime rates, the evidence doesn't show it. Instead, it shows that people tend to become more fearful of immigrant populations, and hence more likely to produce or believe in videos like the one you linked to.

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Jan 14, 16:38 2017

I don't think it's a coincidence that the increase in Jihadist-motivated terrorist attacks in Europe coincides with the massive influx of Muslim populations over the past decade. Some perpetrators are first generation immigrants, others have been in Europe longer, but the ideologies are the same. Again, these people are coming from a part of the world with elements that are openly anti-Western, with the very explicit goal of bringing Jihad against the West.

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/def ... t_2016.pdf

In 2015, 1077 individuals were arrested for terrorism-related offences, over 774 in 2014 and 535 in 2013. Similarly, actual attacks have jumped 40% since 2013.

If the question is why this keeps happening, then the answer is: Because they're being let in.
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Aum » Sat Jan 14, 22:16 2017

Was it actually confirmed that the Christmas attack was terrorism? The article said that the German government isn't ruling it an act of terrorism.

SpicyX... the U.S., supported by NATO and Germany, are currently bombing 7 middle eastern countries. Syria has been obliterated, their civilization is completely destroyed. Literally. Have you seen any pictures of Syria lately? There is nothing left. U.S. and EU foreign policy created ISIS. Calling them terrorists and radicals is incredibly obtuse. They are soldiers coming to attack us on our home soil as part of the ongoing wars we are waging.

The influx of immigration is our own doing, compounded by the jidahists who are taking advantage of the opportunity. You're talking as if xenophobia and hatred of the west are inborn cultural traits of the immigrants, when in fact the minority of radicals have become that way through our own western foreign policy.

I wish people would wake up and stop blaming Islam. It's so obtuse. Read a damn history book.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
Nachos
member
member
Posts: 4640
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 6:42 2004
Location: Next Tuesday
Contact:

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Nachos » Tue Jan 17, 18:28 2017

SpicyX wrote:
Nachos wrote:People, I can't anymore. Why does this shit keep happening?

This is what happens when you indiscriminately let in people from a part of the world that is notoriously anti-Western, and don't screen them like you should be. If no one has ever watched this video, it pretty much dispels the myth of the "peaceful immigrant population."

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820


Untrue. The immigrants are people fleeing because their own countries are being destroyed. And not by them. It is not the Islamic faith that is the problem, it is the fundamentalists and those who brainwash young vulnerable people. Please temper your anti-Islam comments here as they are not welcome.
Ugh, I'm tired of my signature.

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Feb 4, 11:37 2017

Aum wrote:The influx of immigration is our own doing

I agree. Like I said, we're letting them in and not vetting them properly. You can't argue with the statistics.

But you're implying that the West is the cause of Jihadism. It isn't. We didn't cause them to be murderous, anti-Western zealots. That is their ideology.
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5037
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Sonic# » Sat Feb 4, 14:09 2017

I don't think it's a coincidence that the increase in Jihadist-motivated terrorist attacks in Europe coincides with the massive influx of Muslim populations over the past decade.


But, again, that's not what the evidence tends to be showing. In the last post, I highlighted how an increase in immigration does not correlate to an increase in crime, but to an increase in the fear of immigration. The numbers you linked to don't illustrate how any increase in these numbers correlates with immigration. I realize there are two distinct number sets, and they're both increasing, but we'd need to show that they're more than a coincidence. Otherwise they could be as unrelated as temperature increases and the decrease in Caribbean pirates, and restricting immigration or ejecting people won't actually decrease terrorist incidents.

Going back to the study I linked to, the last sentence of the abstract should cause some pause: "Our results reveal a misconception of the link between immigration and crime among European natives." As the article expands on, they observe that the perception of crime increases even though instances of crime don't. Whether that's due to increased media attention, political opportunism[1], or something else, I don't know, but hearing about terrorism a lot doesn't mean terrorism is a bigger problem that can only be dealt with through closed borders and by putting populations of non-Europeans in ghettos.

Like I said, we're letting them in and not vetting them properly.


To the idea that we're "not vetting them properly," that depends on how you define vetting and where. In reference to refugees and the US, according to Politifact the vetting program is robust and involves several levels of interview and review that cumulatively take upwards to two years. In the face of this detailed process, I've never heard a good answer for what "proper" vetting would be. Do we run their names through all the databases a second time? Do we do more on-the-ground interviews? We have such a robust process in place that we should be able to point to a place in the process and say, "We need to improve this," as security agencies did in 2011 in response to actual evidence of a credible vulnerability.

Now, back to Europe, they haven't been able to vet people so comprehensively. Perhaps some concern about reviewing the people coming in is legitimate. If we find an increase of crime in, say, Germany, and we find that it correlates to a rise in the number of immigrants, what might that say? This more recent article studies just that. It too cites that most studies don't find a significant correlation between immigration and crime. It then describes their methods for studying ethnic German immigrants to Germany post-reunification, and discovers that there is a correlation between immigration and higher crime rates!

The harder question is why. You wan to assign these global, general reasons for it: "ideology" amounts to "well, they're just more inclined to crime." That's not what they find: regional factors like higher unemployment exacerbated crime rates. In other words, it's more about economic situations than anything else.

Extending that to the present situation, you insist on painting all immigrants with the broad brush of "Jihadism," when what Nachos says seems more true to history: most of these people are looking for a way out of a shit situation partly caused by colonialist and postcolonialist interventions in the Middle East. Ideology doesn't form in a vacuum. And most immigrants are not inclined to terrorism. So I suggest we split the "them" you keep referring to, that we're honest that most people really are immigrants looking for a better life, and a small minority may be taking advantage of migration patterns to encourage both anti-West and anti-immigrant sentiments. Once we come to that realization, comprehensive security doesn't work through blanket bans and white supremacist movements, but through careful vetting balanced with continued humanitarian aid and offering asylum.

[1] That's why I'm deeply suspicious of the value of Trump's administration publishing weekly numbers on crimes done by immigrants. It is geared specifically to raise attention about them, which may lead to the perception that it's a problem even if the rate of crime has remained the same or lower than that in the larger American population. It conflicts with the more studied annual approach of official data releases like the Uniform Crime Reporting, as well as academic studies that carefully weigh when figures and correlations are significant.

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Feb 4, 14:22 2017

Something you have to understand about statistics is that it's easy to bury significant changes in a population by overwhelming them with numbers from other populations. For example, you might try to distract from the radical increase in Jihadist terrorism committed by Muslim immigrants by citing a study that shows no significant increase in overall crime. The problem with doing this is that it obfuscates the very serious threat posed by Islamic Jihadists that go on murderous rampages against European citizens.

And yes, it's their ideology and system of values that drives them to commit acts of terrorism in the name of their ideology. This is tautological.

Israel has a very good program that serves as an example of good vetting and background checking. Essentially, you must demonstrate a history without criminal behavior, terrorist associations, etc. behavior. European nations should be vetting anyone attempting to enter the nation as an immigrant. They aren't. This is why so many terrorists are getting into Europe.
http://www.ktalegal.com/israel-immigrat ... ed-couples

If the complaint is that "Europe can't vet its immigrants because there are so many people flooding in," perhaps the answer should be to block the borders until they can let them in. It is a valid role of government to protect its citizens from invading criminals and terrorists.
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
melsbells
member
member
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 6:45 2014
Location: Finland

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby melsbells » Sat Feb 4, 14:36 2017

Aum wrote:The influx of immigration is our own doing

I agree. Like I said, we're letting them in and not vetting them properly. You can't argue with the statistics.

But you're implying that the West is the cause of Jihadism. It isn't. We didn't cause them to be murderous, anti-Western zealots. That is their ideology.


That was an excellent example of blatant disregard for what was being said and then using someone else's words out of context to support one's own ideology. If Aum's suggestion was taken seriously, and some history books were read, it would be noted that the first violent jihad of the 20th century was organized by the Reagan administration, gaining support in the Cold War against Russia by framing it as a holy war. One would also learn how the U.S. has had a direct hand in destabalizing governments all over the world toward its own benefit, not to mention indirect support in the form of weapons and monetary gifts to regimes even in the act of genocides.

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby rowan » Sat Feb 4, 14:45 2017

SpicyX, something you don't seem to understand about statistics is you need to apply them to the population you are interested in -- in this case refugees accepted into the U.S. If you do that the incidence is extremely low: Zero.

[in response to your claim that we are not vetting them properly]
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5037
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Sonic# » Sat Feb 4, 14:54 2017

Indeed, it's easy to bury significant statistical trends by appealing to superficial comparisons rather than carefully studying whether there actually is an increase in crime and, if so, where it might come from. You did this by pointing to a few numbers that increased from year to year, and then alleging that the increase was due to increased immigration. The problem with your approach is that you're assuming your premise: that "Islamic Jihadists" make up a significant enough number of immigrants that immigration is the only possible cause of these attacks and banning immigration is the only possible solution. That denies certain facts on the ground (that current refugee camps already constitute a humanitarian crisis; that non-immigrants also commit terrorist acts; that very few immigrants do commit terrorist acts) as well as solutions that work better when we acknowledge those facts. For instance, I'm not opposed to vetting efforts per se, but I think doing so without expanding other humanitarian efforts treats immigrants as a spigot of water rather than a group of people who need help. And conflating terrorism and immigration risks lapses of security, since most people involved in terrorist attacks have not been immigrants: most of the attackers in the November 2015 Paris attack were French or Belgian citizens unrelated to the more recent influxes of immigrants.

Then there's the selectivity of focusing on Islamist terrorism as a threat, when more people die from all kinds of other threats. What of right-wing terrorists like the man who attacked a mosque last week? What of general murder rates by citizens, which per capita far outweigh the risk from terrorist attacks?

Regarding your explanation of "ideology," what you've said doesn't dispute what Nachos and I have pointed out: that ideologies don't form in vacuums. External influences shape how ideologies come about and evolve.

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Feb 4, 15:33 2017

rowan wrote:SpicyX, something you don't seem to understand about statistics is you need to apply them to the population you are interested in -- in this case refugees accepted into the U.S. If you do that the incidence is extremely low: Zero.

[in response to your claim that we are not vetting them properly]


The thread's context is European terrorism.

Sonic# wrote:The problem with your approach is that you're assuming your premise: that "Islamic Jihadists" make up a significant enough number of immigrants that immigration is the only possible cause of these attacks and banning immigration is the only possible solution.

I'm specifically citing terrorist attacks, which were overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and among those, overwhelmingly by immigrants. There is a direct relationship. Incidentally, terrorist attacks are the topic of the thread--not crime in general.

Why are there more terrorist attacks? Because there are more terrorists. Who are the terrorists? Islamic Jihadists. Why are there more of them? Because we keep letting them in.

This is an undeniable reality, and I fail to see what it gains anyone to ignore, obfuscate, or evade it.
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
SpicyX

Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 14:40 2017

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby SpicyX » Sat Feb 4, 15:51 2017

melsbells wrote:If Aum's suggestion was taken seriously, and some history books were read, it would be noted that the first violent jihad of the 20th century was organized by the Reagan administration, gaining support in the Cold War against Russia by framing it as a holy war.

This is an example of the logical fallacy known as tu quoque. Whether or not the Reagan administration had anything to do with aiding various Middle Eastern Jihadist elements is irrelevant to the point of whether Jihadists are the primary perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe. Ronald Reagan did not invent the Wahhabbist interpretation of Islam, nor was he commanding millions of Muslims to identify the West as a target of Jihad. If Ronald Reagan had never existed, Jihadists would still be Jihadists. And they would still be murdering Westerners.

melsbells wrote:One would also learn how the U.S. has had a direct hand in destabalizing governments all over the world toward its own benefit, not to mention indirect support in the form of weapons and monetary gifts to regimes even in the act of genocides.

This is also irrelevant to the question of why terrorist attacks are being perpetrated against European civilians. By even bringing this up, you are essentially arguing that it is the fault of the West--and the U.S. in particular--that terrorists are murdering its citizens. This was a common statement made after 9/11, as well: "They attack us because of [insert something we supposedly did to deserve it]."
Join the feminism voice chat! Download the open source mumble client and connect to:
mumble-us.cleanvoice.ru 50688

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5037
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Sonic# » Sat Feb 4, 16:13 2017

The OP cited an attack in Berlin. Whether the extended context is that attack, terrorist attacks in Germany, terrorist attacks around the world - all of these are valid extrapolations. You are the one who initially guided the thread into talking about immigration and terrorism.

I'm specifically citing terrorist attacks, which were overwhelmingly committed by Muslims, and among those, overwhelmingly by immigrants.


And as I've pointed out, there are three reasons why these reports don't say what you think they say:
1. Many of the people committing these attacks aren't immigrants (see the Paris attacks in November 2015);
2. Terrorist attacks are committed by a very tiny minority of immigrants and/or by a tiny minority of Muslim people;
3. Terrorist attacks don't cause that many deaths, but people think it's a big issue because of greater reporting and fear.

So when you say, "Why are there more terrorist attacks?" the answer isn't "Because we keep letting them in." There are more answers, including that France tends to put economic and social pressure on its Muslim citizens, who find themselves de facto excluded from French civic life in their segregated banlieues. This leads a few people in those populations to become more prone to radicalization. Banning immigration would only exacerbate this problem. More community outreach and cooperation with community leaders would do more good than lumping every Muslim person into the category of "them."

The reality is that focusing exclusively on a narrow version of events doesn't provide a clear picture of reality. While it allows you the freedom to advocate for an immigration ban, it doesn't let you see all the ways in which an immigration ban would both hurt the vast majority of immigrants who are peaceful and fail to stop the terrorism ostensibly being fought.

This is also irrelevant to the question of why terrorist attacks are being perpetrated against European civilians. By even bringing this up, you are essentially arguing that it is the fault of the West--and the U.S. in particular--that terrorists are murdering its citizens.


It seems relevant to bring up, since melbells' argument leads to at least one conclusion: by understanding why different terrorist groups formed, we can understand how to fight them without growing them. That doesn't argue that "the West," the US, clandestine intelligence organizations, et. al. are the only ones to blame. It's to say, "Hey, we've influenced the geopolitics of this area, and terrorism is a geopolitical problem, so let's be careful lest our solutions exacerbate the problem and make things worse for both X and Y (Syria and the US, the Middle East and Europe, and so on)." You've committed the fallacy of the single cause twice: once in alleging that immigration/ideology is the only cause of terrorism, and once in accusing melsbells of making "the West" into a single cause.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3058
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Terrorist attack in Berlin

Postby Aum » Sat Feb 4, 22:04 2017

SpicyX wrote:
Aum wrote:The influx of immigration is our own doing

I agree. Like I said, we're letting them in and not vetting them properly. You can't argue with the statistics.

But you're implying that the West is the cause of Jihadism. It isn't. We didn't cause them to be murderous, anti-Western zealots. That is their ideology.


Not true.

The west has been interfering with the Mid East since Alexander the Great, and during European Colonialism. The British waged war against the region now known as Afghanistan for years and years, until they gave up because the tribes would not relent. Back then the British called them mongrels and barbarians; nowadays we call them jidahists and insurgents. They are just people defending their lands from our takeover.

There is a historical hatred for the west because we have constantly waged war against their region. We wanted control of the entire silk road (we never succeeded). We wanted control of their access and goods. The modern western war on the Mid East is no different. They are oil rich countries with a lot of geopolitical opportunity.

Our support of Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia means we are also taking sides in centuries old tribal warfare that is endemic to the region. Once you support one tribe the rest will hate you forever.

Our constant interference in the region, and our constant propping up of chosen tribes and their dictators, is precisely why we are in this mess. The U.S. chose to fund and support the precusors to ISIS instead of Assad. Now Syria is obliterated.

WAKE UP.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.


Return to “Ranting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest