Lorry attack at Berlin Christmas Market

[luckylager]

1 hour ago, Emmetts said:

I am not religious at all. Crusades happened in the past so i felt that name would connect history where islam attempted to run europe to today where islam is attempting to run europe. 

 

But please sponsor more families, i want 750 safe zones just like france. 

Nice strawman. Your first statement doesn't make any sense, I know the facts you are attempting to reference, you just failed to actually write in English, technically.

 

But please, support the murder of innocent children. See, any dumbass can strawman all day.

[clam linguine]

14 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Dangerous world we now live in....

 

True, but not relevant in most terrorism, Bin Laden being the best example. Terror is more about primitive egos and ideology crumbling under the weight of the modern world.

[Emmetts]

1 hour ago, luckylager said:

Nice strawman. Your first statement doesn't make any sense, I know the facts you are attempting to reference, you just failed to actually write in English, technically.

 

But please, support the murder of innocent children. See, any dumbass can strawman all day.

Ah support the murder of innocent children. 

 

You mean those in nice france? Or those in berlin? Or those in the airport in brussels? Or those in orlando? 

 

Just curious which children matter to you? 

[kingofsurrey]

36 minutes ago, clam linguine said:

True, but not relevant in most terrorism, Bin Laden being the best example. Terror is more about primitive egos and ideology crumbling under the weight of the modern world.

 

I would think  typically many terrorists feel they have nothing to lose in possibly a more metaphysical dimension.. Loss  / destruction of their culture/ religion. 

 

On other occasion,   the suicide bomber may be a relative of a deceased terrorist /  woman lost her husband etc....    Again people that feel they have nothing left to lose. 

[Lancaster]

15 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

 

I would think  typically many terrorists feel they have nothing to lose in possibly a more metaphysical dimension.. Loss  / destruction of their culture/ religion. 

 

On other occasion,   the suicide bomber may be a relative of a deceased terrorist /  woman lost her husband etc....    Again people that feel they have nothing left to lose. 

 

" Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. "

- Golda Meir

[D'Angelo Russell]

Every time these terrorists attacks happen the discussion forum always devolve to some sort of religious arguments especially about Christianity vs. Islam, even though many times its not even related to the event itself. However in this case, the attack was on a Christmas market so its relevant to the discussion, its not hard to argue that it was targeted for religious reasons. Most people don't see it as such but if you look past the political motives on the surface and look at the religious motives, the Jihadists/radical islamists essentially practice a modern day form of human sacrifice. I would argue its even worse than ancient cultures, with modern weapons and anything can become a weapon, like a lorry. 

[kingofsurrey]

Seems like next to impossible to protect citizens from these kinds of truck attacks on public gatherings.....

 

 

[luckylager]

8 hours ago, Emmetts said:

Ah support the murder of innocent children. 

 

You mean those in nice france? Or those in berlin? Or those in the airport in brussels? Or those in orlando? 

 

Just curious which children matter to you? 

Flew right over your head eh. Not surprised.

[Emmetts]

10 hours ago, luckylager said:

Flew right over your head eh. Not surprised.

So your answer is what i expected also. Not surprising tho. Your kind of mindset is how we got to this dilemma in the first place. Good day!

[nucklehead]

Quote

German police are looking for a Tunisian man after finding an identity document under the driver's seat of the truck that ploughed into a Berlin Christmas market, killing 12 people, on Monday evening, security sources said.

The document was in the name of Anis A., born in the southern city of Tataouine in 1992, the sources said, using a convention whereby suspects are identified by their first name and initial. The man was also believed to use false names.

A spokesperson for Tunisia's foreign ministry said it was trying to verify the information. Daily newspaper Bild reported the man was known to police as a possibly dangerous individual, and part of a large Islamist network.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/german-police-seek-tunisian-in-hunt-for-christmas-market-attacker/ar-BBxoS7i?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp

[Ryan Strome]

16 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Seems like next to impossible to protect citizens from these kinds of truck attacks on public gatherings.....

 

 

There certainly is steps we could take to try and stop these horrific and cowardly attacks from happening.

[theminister]

On 2016-12-20 at 7:40 AM, Emmetts said:

No, you dont get the gist. Learn history or be doomed to repeat. 

 

The Battle of Vienna (German: Schlacht am Kahlen Berge or Kahlenberg; Polish: bitwa pod Wiedniem or odsiecz wiedeńska (The Relief of Vienna); Modern Turkish: İkinci Viyana Kuşatması, Ottoman Turkish: Beç Ḳalʿası Muḥāṣarası) took place at KahlenbergMountain near Vienna on 12 September 1683^[1] after the imperial city had been besieged by the Ottoman Empire for two months. The battle was fought by the Habsburg Monarchy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire, under the command of King John III Sobieski against the invading Muslim Ottoman Empire and its vassal and tributary states. The battle marked the first time the Commonwealth and the Holy Roman Empire had cooperated militarily against the Ottomans, and it is often seen as a turning point in history, after which "the Ottoman Turks ceased to be a menace to the Christian world".^[18] In the ensuing war that lasted until 1699, the Ottomans lost almost all of Hungary to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I.^[18]

 

 

 

You're citing a battle that took place 500 years after the Crusades, where European armies invaded the Levant. 

[-SN-]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

There certainly is steps we could take to try and stop these horrific and cowardly attacks from happening.

 

Like?

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

There certainly is steps we could take to try and stop these horrific and cowardly attacks from happening.

What can we do though?  

[Lancaster]

2 hours ago, theminister said:

You're citing a battle that took place 500 years after the Crusades, where European armies invaded the Levant. 

 

A century prior, it was Byzantine land. 

 

Not trying to target you, just want to point out that "invaded" can alternatively be considered as "reclamation", just depending on how far back in history you want to look back and which side you support more.  One of the problem is that we (society) glance at history and try to fit it into our 21st century narrative, rather than just viewing it from the lense of how the people/decision-makers at that time viewed it.  

[riffraff]

19 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

 

A century prior, it was Byzantine land. 

 

Not trying to target you, just want to point out that "invaded" can alternatively be considered as "reclamation", just depending on how far back in history you want to look back and which side you support more.  One of the problem is that we (society) glance at history and try to fit it into our 21st century narrative, rather than just viewing it from the lense of how the people/decision-makers at that time viewed it.  

 

[theminister]

2 hours ago, Lancaster said:

 

A century prior, it was Byzantine land. 

 

Not trying to target you, just want to point out that "invaded" can alternatively be considered as "reclamation", just depending on how far back in history you want to look back and which side you support more.  One of the problem is that we (society) glance at history and try to fit it into our 21st century narrative, rather than just viewing it from the lense of how the people/decision-makers at that time viewed it.  

Firstly, 'invaded' is the correct word. To cite semantical personal preferences of word choice is deflecting from the central point. I wasn't making a political statement, I was attempting to show the incorrect reference to history as you stated being the discussions. ie. my grandfather invaded Normandy in 1944 too. That was also an 'invasion' to 'reclaim' land from 4 years prior. Still an invasion. 

 

The mistake in your assumptions, of reading my correction of his attempting to tie directly unrelatable military incursions from several centuries apart, is that I need to support a side. I don't. They're all wrong. 

 

Second, where is this 'century before' you are getting? That's most certainly not the case.

 

661 CE Muslim conquest of Levant

1099 CE Crusader Invasions begin

1683 CE Ottomans attack Vienna

 

All three of these events are separated by hundreds of years and none can be viewed as anything other than military aggressions IMHO. There really bear no relation to each other except as justifications for war, which is never really the truth of history.

 

The irony of your statement is that by claiming it can be viewed as a 'reclamation' at all is that you are doing precisely what you start out arguing against, fitting it into your narrative. As in, that makes it clear you at picking a side of battles from a millennia prior. That's not what I was doing at all. I was showing that attributing the concept 'Crusades' to battles in the 17th century, as opposed to the 11th and 12th centuries, shows a poor understanding of history. 

 

That's all I was correcting and it's because it's a personal pet peeve. 

 

Don't attempt to drag me into your holy war, thank you very much. 

 

 

[Lancaster]

8 minutes ago, theminister said:

Firstly, 'invaded' is the correct word. To cite semantical personal preferences of word choice is deflecting from the central point. I wasn't making a political statement, I was attempting to show the incorrect reference to history as you stated being the discussions. ie. my grandfather invaded Normandy in 1944 too. 

 

The mistake in your assumptions, of reading my correction of his attempting to tie directly unrelatable military incursions from several centuries apart, is that I need to support a side. I don't. They're all wrong. 

 

Second, where is this 'century before' you are getting? That's most certainly not the case.

 

661 CE Muslim conquest of Levant

1099 CE Crusader Invasions begin

1683 CE Ottomans attack Vienna

 

All three of these events are separated by hundreds of years and none can be viewed as anything other than military aggressions IMHO. There really bear no relation to each other except as justifications for war, which is never really the truth of history.

 

The irony of your statement is that by claiming it can be viewed as a 'reclamation' at all is that you are doing precisely what you start out arguing against, fitting it into your narrative. As in, that makes it clear you at picking a side of battles from a millennia prior. That's not what I was doing at all. I was showing that attributing the concept 'Crusades' to battles in the 17th century, as opposed to the 11th and 12th centuries, shows a poor understanding of history. 

 

That's all I was correcting and it's because it's a personal pet peeve. 

 

Don't attempt to drag me into your holy war, thank you very much. 

 

 

 

Woah... don't drag me into your debate with whoever.  I just wanted to point out that certain words may have negative connotations associated with them.

Christians "invading" the Levant certainly sounds more negative than say Christians "reclaiming" the Levant... yet both are entirely correct.  

 

As for my narrative, what narrative am I supposedly sprouting?  Maybe implying that different words can be misconstrued?  Oh gee golly.... such heresy and treachery.... no fouler words has ever been spoken..... 

[taxi]

On 12/20/2016 at 10:17 AM, kingofsurrey said:

 

I would think  typically many terrorists feel they have nothing to lose in possibly a more metaphysical dimension.. Loss  / destruction of their culture/ religion. 

 

On other occasion,   the suicide bomber may be a relative of a deceased terrorist /  woman lost her husband etc....    Again people that feel they have nothing left to lose. 

 

Many of the most notorious terrorists have been extremely wealthy people with lots to lose. The people who direct the terrorist largely live a lavish life style. Their recruits are often impressionable young men. They are indoctrinated and do what they do because: 1) Young men have a propensity for violence and love being given a direction to point that in; and 2) they prescribe to a doctrine that tell them they are gaining immeasurable wealth in the afterlife. Great examples are all the ISIS fighters from the UK. Many of whom came from good families, were well educated, had never experienced any kind of violence themselves, and had lots to lose. 

 

Thousands of young men from places like the UK, Germany, France, and Canada made the huge leap to actually head to Syria and fight for ISIS. How many more wanted to but never actually left.

 

It's a lot more complex than you are letting on.

[kingofsurrey]

6 hours ago, taxi said:

 

Many of the most notorious terrorists have been extremely wealthy people with lots to lose. The people who direct the terrorist largely live a lavish life style. Their recruits are often impressionable young men. They are indoctrinated and do what they do because: 1) Young men have a propensity for violence and love being given a direction to point that in; and 2) they prescribe to a doctrine that tell them they are gaining immeasurable wealth in the afterlife. Great examples are all the ISIS fighters from the UK. Many of whom came from good families, were well educated, had never experienced any kind of violence themselves, and had lots to lose. 

 

Thousands of young men from places like the UK, Germany, France, and Canada made the huge leap to actually head to Syria and fight for ISIS. How many more wanted to but never actually left.

 

It's a lot more complex than you are letting on.

 

My point earlier is maybe they feel they / their culture-society   have lost in the  metaphysical  / spirtual manner.....