Magdeburg Christmas market attack
- Thread starter Veronicaaa
- Start date
1
Veronicaaa
VIP Member
Someone called Hans Goldenbaum was on the BBC news, he does research into this sort of thing. He was saying that his organisation already knew the perpetrator as a far right online activist, part of a "global 'filter bubble' of global far right extremism, dealing especially with anti Islamic content and anti migrant content". He was also saying that in the past 24 hours, there has been a spike of attacks on people deemed to be Muslim and/or migrants in the city.
Last edited:
monga
VIP Member
He states he’s a leftist ? I guess he was disillusioned by the influx of Syrians replacing the Saudi asylum seekers? Blames the German gov for denying Saudi asylum claims.Seemed to hate asylum seekers from other countries.
theleagueofgentlemen
VIP Member
They are rare though. Of course we don’t know about the attacks that are planned and then stopped without our knowledge, but actual attacks? They’re rare. That’s why they make the news and are rightly met with such revulsion.
suseh97
Well-known member
Because he hated Christians and Muslims
---
He has been in Germany since 2006. So no need to lie/pretend.
He’s not been hiding in plain sight either. He’s been fairly out there and vocal. Features in the bbc on his work, interviews with RAIR. Even Tommeh followed him.
The mental gymnastics some people online are using to try and place the blame on Muslims is quite something. When only days ago they were feting this guy.
Attachments
Last edited:
monga
VIP Member
If he was really far right/ Islamophobe he had the perfect opportunity to strike the German markets a few days ago when they were completely overrun with Syrians celebrating the fall of Assad
why were the authorities interested in his hard drive? Maybe he thought deportation was on the cards so decided to make his mark? Prison might be preferable to certain death in his home country ?---
But the problem we have is the sheer amount of people allowed to freely come into Europe with no checks whatsoever. How can the security services keep on top of this. It’s pure madness that so many ‘men’ and let’s be honest, it’s almost always men that carry out attacks, are coming into Europe. The resources are just not there to check these people. I cannot get my head round how this has been allowed to happen. Sometimes it feels the whole of the Middle East is coming over. They seem to hate each other half the time due to their religious beliefs so I cannot see how they would ever be happy with a western way of life. It’s a disaster
theleagueofgentlemen
VIP Member
I’ll be honest, I feel that you and I have very differing beliefs.
But, you’re absolutely correct. As I said in my first post here, it’s always men who carry out this type of attack. Everyone seems to be so fast to jump in the ‘what religion/colour/immigration status’ etc, but we’re never looking or talking about the common denominator. It’s men. No matter what country, it’s always a man. As a society we need to figure out why.
I swear to GOD the world would be better without them.
theleagueofgentlemen
VIP Member
You don't remember men being over represented as a terrorist threat? I'm assuming you must be younger than me then because it's always been the case that men have committed more acts of terrorism than women.
monga
VIP Member
When have we lived in fear of incels , terrorists as a general rule beyond a couple of decades ago? Sure there were home grown terrorists that did involve women but not on this scale ,it’s risen 10 fold in recent years.
---
Last edited:
Veronicaaa
VIP Member
It's been 20 years since the 'Global War on Terror' began -
According to the Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 wars of the campaign have displaced 38 million people, the second largest number of forced displacements of any conflict since 1900,[21] and caused more than 4.5 million deaths (direct and indirect) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. They also estimate that it has cost the US Treasury over $8 trillion.
While support for the "war on terror" was high among the American public during its initial years, it had become deeply unpopular by the late 2000s.[25][26] Controversy over the war has focused on its morality, casualties, and continuity, with critics questioning government measures that infringed civil liberties and human rights.[27] Critics have notably described the Patriot Act as "Orwellian" due to its substantial expansion of the federal government's surveillance powers.[28][29] Controversial practices of coalition forces have been condemned, including drone warfare, surveillance, torture, extraordinary rendition and various war crimes.[30][31][32] The participating governments have been criticized for implementing authoritarian measures, repressing minorities,[33][34] fomenting Islamophobia globally,[35] and causing negative impacts to health and environment.[36][37][38] Security analysts assert that there is no military solution to the conflict, pointing out that terrorism is not an identifiable enemy, and have emphasized the importance of negotiations and political solutions to resolve the underlying roots of the crises.[39]
War on terror - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
thegirlscout
VIP Member
I think in Europe maybe but in Russia, Africa and parts of Asia there have been female terrorists. I believe they are called ‘black widows’. Or at least that’s what they are called in Chechnya.
Lars Guinard
VIP Member
When you think of a 'start' for terrorism...it begins at 9/11.It's been 20 years since the 'Global War on Terror' began -
According to the Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 wars of the campaign have displaced 38 million people, the second largest number of forced displacements of any conflict since 1900,[21] and caused more than 4.5 million deaths (direct and indirect) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. They also estimate that it has cost the US Treasury over $8 trillion.
While support for the "war on terror" was high among the American public during its initial years, it had become deeply unpopular by the late 2000s.[25][26] Controversy over the war has focused on its morality, casualties, and continuity, with critics questioning government measures that infringed civil liberties and human rights.[27] Critics have notably described the Patriot Act as "Orwellian" due to its substantial expansion of the federal government's surveillance powers.[28][29] Controversial practices of coalition forces have been condemned, including drone warfare, surveillance, torture, extraordinary rendition and various war crimes.[30][31][32] The participating governments have been criticized for implementing authoritarian measures, repressing minorities,[33][34] fomenting Islamophobia globally,[35] and causing negative impacts to health and environment.[36][37][38] Security analysts assert that there is no military solution to the conflict, pointing out that terrorism is not an identifiable enemy, and have emphasized the importance of negotiations and political solutions to resolve the underlying roots of the crises.[39]
War on terror - Wikipedia
Historically, the term “terrorism” was initially coined to describe the Reign of Terror, the period of the French Revolution from 5 September 1793 to 27 July 1794. The revolutionary government terrorised the French citizens.
The 'duck about' stage of supplying arms and creating/funding the Taliban and other organisations would come to an end...enter the 'find out' stage.
If only there was a word for taking over countries and 'ruling' them
Then you find out that PTSD is real and the consequences of multigenerational anger at oppressive regimes is real.
thegirlscout
VIP Member
I’m pretty sure the provisional IRA were called ‘terrorists’ in Britain during the 70s/80s…When you think of a 'start' for terrorism...it begins at 9/11.
Historically, the term “terrorism” was initially coined to describe the Reign of Terror, the period of the French Revolution from 5 September 1793 to 27 July 1794. The revolutionary government terrorised the French citizens.
The 'duck about' stage of supplying arms and creating/funding the Taliban and other organisations would come to an end...enter the 'find out' stage.
If only there was a word for taking over countries and 'ruling' them
Then you find out that PTSD is real and the consequences of multigenerational anger at oppressive regimes is real.
The Tories also used to call Nelson Mandela a ‘communist terrorist’
Last edited:
Lynn’ssnazzycardigan
VIP Member
I’m thankful for tattle that we can debate this in a civil way from all perspectives, if someone on here thinks it or says it then you can extrapolate that others are of the same view. Difference on here is it (usually 
) doesn’t descend into a slanging match and there have been threads and comments where I have genuinely had my perspective changed/got educated (hate that phrase)!
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I do think it favours the powers that be to have people arguing amongst themselves and finding groups to demonise because it directs their anger away from the government failures at play. I’m probably not wording it very well but eg if there’s a big group blaming “them immigrants” they can be dismissed as “uneducated little englanders”, and the opposing side “woke lefties”. Neither will be taken seriously even though they are all real people with legitimate fears and concerns. You get bad actors on both sides harnessing this unrest and profiting from it in some way.
) doesn’t descend into a slanging match and there have been threads and comments where I have genuinely had my perspective changed/got educated (hate that phrase)! I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I do think it favours the powers that be to have people arguing amongst themselves and finding groups to demonise because it directs their anger away from the government failures at play. I’m probably not wording it very well but eg if there’s a big group blaming “them immigrants” they can be dismissed as “uneducated little englanders”, and the opposing side “woke lefties”. Neither will be taken seriously even though they are all real people with legitimate fears and concerns. You get bad actors on both sides harnessing this unrest and profiting from it in some way.
Okivia2020
Active member
I totally agree with the above. I came to that realisation during Covid. Wear a mask vs. Don’t wear a mask. Get vaccinated vs. Don’t. People completely turned on each other which was a distraction imo. It completely benefits the powerful people that there is hate and it takes away the fact that we are all individuals who have the right to our own beliefs and having the power to voice those views in a respectful way and not be a sheep just doesn’t work for them. Agree that’s why tattle is good in most parts. I don’t feel offended by any religion. I’m very much of the belief that you do you hun in whatever aspect that is in life as long as you aren’t harming anyone or trying to change what I believe. Sorry for the rant but I genuinely believe that’s where the world has gone so wrong
monga
VIP Member
There are many terrorist groups that have not experienced any war. There are people that refuse to acknowledge blame on all sides , the reason stalemate happens.It's been 20 years since the 'Global War on Terror' began -
According to the Costs of War Project, the post-9/11 wars of the campaign have displaced 38 million people, the second largest number of forced displacements of any conflict since 1900,[21] and caused more than 4.5 million deaths (direct and indirect) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. They also estimate that it has cost the US Treasury over $8 trillion.
While support for the "war on terror" was high among the American public during its initial years, it had become deeply unpopular by the late 2000s.[25][26] Controversy over the war has focused on its morality, casualties, and continuity, with critics questioning government measures that infringed civil liberties and human rights.[27] Critics have notably described the Patriot Act as "Orwellian" due to its substantial expansion of the federal government's surveillance powers.[28][29] Controversial practices of coalition forces have been condemned, including drone warfare, surveillance, torture, extraordinary rendition and various war crimes.[30][31][32] The participating governments have been criticized for implementing authoritarian measures, repressing minorities,[33][34] fomenting Islamophobia globally,[35] and causing negative impacts to health and environment.[36][37][38] Security analysts assert that there is no military solution to the conflict, pointing out that terrorism is not an identifiable enemy, and have emphasized the importance of negotiations and political solutions to resolve the underlying roots of the crises.[39]
War on terror - Wikipedia
---
The white widow is probably one of the most prolific home grown terrorists.
---
Still are, look how many female members they had propping up the ranks I could name quite a few off the top my head .
Last edited: