Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm just watching updates on German TV this morning. They are saying the attacker had been in Germany for about two years, and that he tried to commit suicide twice before this. He was actually hospitalized in psychiatric care at some point in this time here in Germany for that.

Blowing himself up with casualties is, of course, different from simply committing suicide. Perhaps his frail mental state allowed some ISIS propaganda to take root and he was goaded into a third suicide attempt with this attack? I'm mostly wondering right now whether he made the bomb himself or - worst case - if it was supplied to him by someone, which would mean far more planning. I don't think that's the case, though, especially since it sounds like it wasn't the most effective of bombs.

Update: He was an asylum seeker but his case was *denied* by German authorities. Reasons for that are not available right now. He was officially "tolerated" here ( which is the word the officials seem to use ). Spiegel.de mentions having no ID or war-like conditionss in the country of origin as reasons why someone with a denied asylum case might still be tolerated here on a semi-official basis.

I'm fearing this will REALLY push the anti-immigrant agenda forward, simply because it was an officially denied asylum seeker being able to cause havoc. There'll be lots of blame on politics and "the system" for this happening, even though on the other hand, even though, on the other hand, a denied asylum seeker apparently got stationary hospital care ( which is something I'm really happy about in Germany ).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Do you have any counter argument besides What-about-ism? "But Christianity is violent too!" is not a valid counter argument.

The argument is fairly simple - a religion is not a bunch of clobber verses that you can pick out to tell someone of that faith what they must believe. It is a lived experience that draws on culture more than any book. People like to believe their book represents an unchanging truth that is always the same, but look how much any religion has changed over time. This change happens because a religion is driven more by the surrounding culture than individual verses in their holy text.

For instance, the bible mentions unicorns eight times. It would be silly to conclude that therefore Christians believed in unicorns, but there it is in the book. Turns out Christianity was part of a society that developing a better understanding of the natural world, and better educating the general population, and as that happened any nonsense about unicorns just kind of got ignored. For a less silly effort, look at the Christian debate around slavery in the mid 19th century in the US, people threw bible verses at each other over whether Christianity condoned slavery or not, both sides were seen to have legitimate arguments, 150 years later and hardly anyone genuinely believes Christianity condones slavery... but the book didn't change, just the culture surrounding it.

That's how it works with those violent verses in the Koran, same as it worked with the nastier stuff in the bible (old and new testament) - as society no longer wanted that stuff, it just ignored it explained it away. Same thing in Islam.

More on this to confirm @Wizkatz

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36880758

A failed Syrian asylum seeker has blown himself up and injured 12 other people with a backpack bomb near a festival in the south German town of Ansbach.
The state of Bavaria's interior minister said the 27-year-old man had detonated the device after being refused entry to the music festival.
About 2,500 people were evacuated from the venue after the explosion.
Bavaria has been on edge since a knife rampage on a train claimed by so-called Islamic State last Monday.
The Ansbach blast is reported to have happened at about 22:10 (20:10 GMT) outside the Eugens Weinstube bar in the centre of the town, which has a population of 40,000 and is home to a US military base.
The bomb went off close to the entrance to the Ansbach Open music festival.
A witness, Thomas Debinski, reported "panic" after the explosion, although some people had thought it was caused by a gas explosion.
"Then people came past and said it was a rucksack that had exploded," he told Sky News.

Failed asylum bid
The Syrian man entered Germany two years ago and had his asylum claim rejected a year ago, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said.
He had been given leave to stay temporarily given the situation in his home country and provided with an apartment in Ansbach, Mr Herrmann added.
The minister said he was "incensed" by the attack which, he continued, demonstrated the need to "strengthen controls on those we have living in our country".
Mr Herrmann said the man had been known to have tried to take his own life twice and had spent time in a psychiatric clinic.
"We don't know if this man planned on suicide or if he had the intention of killing others," he said.
However, the bomb in the backpack would have been sufficient to kill and injure many more people, he added.
Ansbach deputy police chief Roman Fertinger said there were "indications" that pieces of metal had been added to the explosive device.



And, much like the previous, terrible, event there is no evidence that religion was a motive here. Lets not get bogged down over theology.
The common theme here is mental health.

So, how about we leave the religious discussion for a thread where it's actually on topic?

Until a religious link is reported in this case, that's not this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/world/ansbach-germany-blast/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36882831

Bomber says he was doing it for ISIS in the name of Allah in retaliation for killing Muslims.

 insaniak wrote:
Until a religious link is reported in this case, that's not this thread. [/color]

There goes that.

Well the I word seems to be cropping up again. :(

It sounds awful but can,t just have a gas explosion...

So I don't understand why we insist on thinking that religion is good, people are bad. Its not that simple, and neither is religion is bad, people are good. Islam, as a whole is full of people doing their thing day in and day out, just wanting to make some love, raise their children, and be left alone. Wahabism is bad. It is not different than the strict christian sects that insist on reading every word, and believing it verbatim.

It is what leads to the fundamentilist movements that recruit weak minded individuals and turn them to nefarious deeds. The same could be said for any cult. Branch Davidian was a similar case study, amongst others. This is just on a larger more aggressive scale.

I know Ouze was being sarcastic, but that conversation needs to be had, seriously, among all the countries of the civilized world, and a plan needs to be put into place. Not necessarily open war, but some kind of plan.

As far as the Koran is concerned, it is full of violent texts and teachings, but no more than the old testament. One can easily turn those into teachings that influence believers into doing horrible things in the name of religion. It is a reality, and explaining it away by being naive is exactly how they thrive. don't hate a large group of people, but understand that the religion is the tool being used to influence people to do these things. It doesn't make you a racist, or biggot or a bad person to simply understand this.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The difference is, the New Testament largely superseded the earlier violent passages of the Old Testament with more peaceful passages.

Which did precisely nothing to prevent the centuries of religious persecution, warfare and genocides that blighted Europe and elsewhere.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"But Christianity is violent too!" is not a valid counter argument.

Which isn't my argument anyway. All religions can be used to validate violence, singling out Islam is just ideological axe grinding.

I just really want to highlight what is wrong with this train of thought, I am sure the liberal posters here will have a embolism for this but so be it.

Which isn't my argument anyway. All religions can be used to validate violence, singling out Islam is just ideological axe grinding.

1: You brought Christianity into the discussion, if your intent wasn't to use that as an argument why bother bringing it up?
2: I agree with you, ALL religions (with the exception of maybe Buddhism) can be used to validate violence.

Now here is the kicker.

Most religion can be used to justify violence, however, how often do you hear about Christian terrorism? Jewish Terrorism? Catholic terrorism? Buddhist terrorism? Taoist Terrorism? The list can go on for a significant amount of time. The point being that unlike the majority of other religions, Islam hasn't evolved with the times and has instead reverted to its historical context. The Quran is most definitely violent and anyone who has read it knows that, it is not simply a matter or misinterpretation it is a fact. The problem lies not in the book, as Sebster pointed out, but in the fact that people still follow it dogmatically and the results end in terrorist attacks.

Islam is currently the most violent religion in the world, and has been so almost from inception.

For me to jump to the conclusion that this had something to do with his religion is profiling, but also common sense, it is not my jog to determine guilt, that belongs to the courts.

 nels1031 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Until a religious link is reported in this case, that's not this thread. [/color]

There goes that.

And that's fine. The point was to simply avoid jumping to conclusions as happened in the other thread. There are plenty of threads about attacks by actual religious extremists without derailing every single discussion with the whole 'Islam is bad, mKay?' shtick.

 insaniak wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Until a religious link is reported in this case, that's not this thread. [/color]

There goes that.

And that's fine. The point was to simply avoid jumping to conclusions as happened in the other thread. There are plenty of threads about attacks by actual religious extremists without derailing every single discussion with the whole 'Islam is bad, mKay?' shtick.

Wouldn't that same rationale also apply to everyone who posts things like "Police are racist mKay?" in every single police shooting thread when the facts haven't come out yet? Isn't speculation part of what this forum is about?

SemperMortis wrote:

1: You brought Christianity into the discussion, if your intent wasn't to use that as an argument why bother bringing it up?

Christianity is the most apt comparison to Islam due to its global reach and besides Zergsmasher is the one who brought Christianity into the discussion in the Munich thread and it was him that I was replying to.

SemperMortis wrote:

The point being that unlike the majority of other religions, Islam hasn't evolved with the times and has instead reverted to its historical context.

The middle east is politically unstable and there is now a political climate of definably Islamic violence, largely due to misguided western interference, which draws in misfits, fanatics and various other troublemakers. This is a relatively new phenomena and has far more to do with politics than it does to the tenets of a particular religion. The western Jihadists at least commonly seem to have a history of mental illness and a very shakey grasp of Islam.

SemperMortis wrote:

Islam is currently the most violent religion in the world, and has been so almost from inception.

Citation very much needed.

I'm an atheist, I see little worth in any religion, but singling out Islam as some kind of black sheep is just wrong when the whole flock is black, or at least varying shades of dark grey.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Islam is currently the most violent religion in the world, and has been so almost from inception.

Citation very much needed.

I'm an atheist, I see little worth in any religion, but singling out Islam as some kind of black sheep is just wrong when the whole flock is black, or at least varying shades of dark grey.

https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

Beyond that, you can look at the recent 30-40 years and see a very clear trend.

Just to clarify, when I say violent religion I mean people killing in the name of their god, not people killing for other reasons who happen to be that religion or from a country dominated by that religion. In other words murder or terrorism based on religion.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

The difference is, the New Testament largely superseded the earlier violent passages of the Old Testament with more peaceful passages.

Which did precisely nothing to prevent the centuries of religious persecution, warfare and genocides that blighted Europe and elsewhere.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
"But Christianity is violent too!" is not a valid counter argument.

Which isn't my argument anyway. All religions can be used to validate violence, singling out Islam is just ideological axe grinding.

Oh I'm sorry, did I overlook the several dozen annual suicide bombings, mass shootings and random lone wolf stabbings carried out by Christians, Jews and Sikhs over the last 5 years?

Islam is being singled out because it is disproportionately by far the world leader in violent terrorism today. If Catholics or Sikhs or whoever were currently waging a violent terror campaign across Europe, you fething betcha I would be calling them out and condemning them for it. But they are not, so I am not. I will not refrain from criticising what I consider to be an very authoritarian and in some cases, bigoted and violent political system (because let's remember, Islam is not just a religion, its a totalitarian political ideology) just because other religions are "just as bad" now, or have been at some point in the past.

Pretending all religions are just as bad as each other is a fallacy that only serves as an obstacle to addressing Islams current epidemic of extremism.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Islam is being singled out because it is disproportionately by far the world leader in violent terrorism today.

Largely for political reasons. Islam once fostered the most enlightened culture in the world, at a time when Christians were little more than savages, using the same Quran as is in use today.

All religions do have the capacity to legitimise violence, there is nothing fallacious about that.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
All religions do have the capacity to legitimise violence, there is nothing fallacious about that.

I agree. But thats not what I said. You are falsely equivocating all religions as having an equal capacity for violence.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
All religions do have the capacity to legitimise violence, there is nothing fallacious about that.

I agree. But thats not what I said. You are falsely equivocating all religions as having an equal capacity for violence.

If body count is your criteria than Sikhs have a place at the table. Look up anything on the Punjab and Amritsar.

Violent Acts?
Over the last 20 years the extreme christian right of America is responsible for yearly domestic terror - against abortion providers.

Africa has a high proportion of christians who rape murder and pillage in their deities name.

The ethnic cleansing in the Balkans?

I

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You are falsely equivocating all religions as having an equal capacity for violence.

Religions in and of themselves have no capacity for violence, its their adherents that are responsible for that and given that religion is usually a convenient excuse rather than the actual reason I would certainly say that all 'religions' have an equal capacity for violence.

I wouldn't say that all religions promote or sustain violence to an equal degree, although there is such a thing as Buddhist terrorism, but Christianity and Islam are about as bloody as each other when you take the long view, and you should always take the long view..

It just happens to be Europe... Ok exclude UK...

Has had very low Christian terror attacks in recent decades.
Ok Ireland has calmed alot in past few years.

However we have had a big spike in proclaimed Islamic Terror.
Granted that Europe had Carlos the Jackel in times oast, and Russian backed leftist terror...

Terror always been about. The newest wave seems to be a new level of savagery though..

 Ouze wrote:
when are we going to stop being too pc to talk about islamic terrorism tho

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36882831

The Syrian man who blew himself up in Ansbach, Germany, on Sunday made a video pledging allegiance to the leader of so-called Islamic State, Bavarian authorities say.
The man threatened a "revenge attack" on Germans in the video, they said.
Germany's federal prosecutor's office has taken on the case due to "the suspicion of membership of a foreign terrorist organisation".
IS has claimed it was behind the attack and the Syrian was an IS "soldier".

 General Annoyance wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
when are we going to stop being too pc to talk about islamic terrorism tho

Because there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism; the nutcases behind it think it has to do with their religion, but not a single word in the Q'uran justifies the killing of other human beings

lol really? Clearly you haven't read it.

Do I have to quote myself on this?

I have read the Q'uran, and I have lived in one of the most intense Islamic states in the world (Qatar) for 5 years, not to mention being in Dubai for another 5 years (though they're a lot more liberal). Also have plenty of Muslim friends, and my brother is a Muslim; not a single one gets behind some twit leading an extremist cult who has a meaningless degree.

It's always the intelligent who lead the stupid in these cases, and it's always for their own narcissism, not whatever prophecy they've misquoted or misinterpreted from one of the most peace promoting religions in the world.

But hey, guess I know nothing

Guess I have to

I've already dealt with one moron today, please don't be the second without something decent to argue for your case

If you read it, then clearly you haven't taken anything from it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

Not a single word justifies killing another human being? lol wut...

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=191






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
All religions do have the capacity to legitimise violence, there is nothing fallacious about that.

I agree. But thats not what I said. You are falsely equivocating all religions as having an equal capacity for violence.

If body count is your criteria than Sikhs have a place at the table. Look up anything on the Punjab and Amritsar.

Violent Acts?
Over the last 20 years the extreme christian right of America is responsible for yearly domestic terror - against abortion providers.

Africa has a high proportion of christians who rape murder and pillage in their deities name.

The ethnic cleansing in the Balkans?

I

Do you have more information on the African Christians? I've not heard of this.

Can't fight opinions on the Internet, they just argue until everybody else gives up and then they just celebrate that they win by default.

Muslims are our generations Communists. They are the bad guys, simply because we need bad guys to justify our own jacked up policies and interventions. These attacks don't even register in the death statistics of any of these countries. They don't matter because they kill people, if deaths matter we would have done a lot of gak about a lot of gak. Truth is that western society doesn't really care about deaths, they are an accepted consequence of our daily lives. Replace "guy kills someone with machete" with "drunk spouse kills other spouse with bare fists" and you would have a story burried in the local news.

All that matters is that it's Muslims killing people, and as long as people care more about the facts that Muslims are the cause than they ever did about any victims of any other cause of death no amount of explaining anything will have any impact. People don't give a feth about facts, the don't give a feth about victims, they just care about agendas.

SemperMortis wrote:
Most religion can be used to justify violence, however, how often do you hear about Christian terrorism? Jewish Terrorism? Catholic terrorism? Buddhist terrorism?

Christianity? In the Central African Republic there have a been a long series of massacres of Muslim civilians, which at its peak was killing about 1,000 a month. They have attacked and destroyed almost all mosques in the region. They have effected an almost complete ethnic cleanse - a population of more than 100,000 muslims now numbers less than 1,000, as they have fled to escape the violence.

Christian seperatists in Northern India have been waging a war to form their own country. They have attacked all kinds of non-Christians, and kidnapping with forced conversion is a favourite tactic. It is believed that around 20 people have died as a result of the torture of these 'conversion' attempts.

Remember that stupid Kony campaign on the internet? As cheap and goofy as that was, it was about a real guy, and the Lord's Resistance Army that he leads is a Christian guerilla army. They have committed many massacres, and use abduction and brainwashing of children as a key part of their operating strategy. Over 30 years they've killed tens of thousands of people.

Did you ever hear of the Maronite Christians in Lebanon? They were part of the whole mess of a civil war that ended up dragging in the US, remember the Beirut bombing? Anyhow, while that's maybe the only bit that's remembered by most people in the west today, that nasty war also included two instances in 1976 of of civilian refugee camps being attacked by Christian militants. The first saw something north of a thousand refugees massacred, the second was around 2,000 civilians murdered.

Want to move on to Jewish terrorism? When the Jewish population wasn't happy with the balance of power in Palestine under the British Mandate, they began a terror campaign, abducting and killing British soldiers. There was also a bombing campaign that killed many, and culminated in the King David Hotal bombing, the home of the British administration, that killed 92.

Various Jewish groups have also been involved in terror acts against Palestinians. Settlement groups that have had to return settlements or have failed to been given privileges to start new settlements have undergone 'price tag' attacks on Palestinians living in places that the settles want, and while most attacks are vandalism there have been murders and abductions.

Catholic terrorism? First up, classy move on differentiating Christianity and Catholicism. Second up, holy crap dude the IRA.

And in Buddhism? In Myanmar armed resistance against the military government is centred around Buddhist nationalists. At its peak fighting killed around 200 in a month. And as is typical of any religiously backed uprising, the victims were often not targeted out of any connection to the government, but for being Muslim.

In Thailand Buddhist nationalism was a key part of the fight against the Muslim insurgency. Buddhist vigilante squads were condoned by government and they committed many acts of violence.

Now as you read through that list you might have noticed something. You might have noticed that a common theme was poverty, and a second theme was people who wanted something they couldn't get through non-violent means. Where those circumstances exist then you'll get angry young men and the disillusioned who will be drawn to the cause like moths to a flame. So what you see is a pattern in which every religion is violent to the extent that it's adherents live in areas that are plagued by poverty and political instability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I agree. But thats not what I said. You are falsely equivocating all religions as having an equal capacity for violence.

But whatever capacity a religion might inherently have for violence is dwarfed by other factors. I mean sure, one book might have six verses that can be used to justify blowing up some civilians, and another text might have only four... but if there's any impact to that at all it is absolutely tiny compared to poverty, to political instability, and to the tendency of angry young men to latch on to any kind of militant movement.