Terrorist Assassination Plot in Germany

Billy86

Well this is interesting... makes you wonder who may have been the target? We all know the motives.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39859058

German authorities have made another arrest linked to an alleged plot to murder a senior public figure.

The man, a soldier, is accused of conspiring with another army officer who had falsely registered as a Syrian refugee, and a student.

The suspected right-wing extremists wanted to frame refugees for the attack, say prosecutors.

Their alleged targets included former German president Joachim Gauck and Justice Minister Heiko Maas.

The affair has sparked a national debate about right-wing extremism in Germany's armed forces.

...

The three "planned an attack against a high-ranking politician or public figure who was supportive of what the accused saw as the failed immigration and refugee affairs policies", prosecutors said.

Samaris

Well, that's...worrying.

Given the motives, I doubt it actually matters who they were going for (well, it would likely matter to the potential victims). Highest political rank accessible whose level of protection doesn't make it too difficult to pull off.

Jack the Stripper

Meanwhile the weather is remaining settled.

tomwaterford

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is interesting... makes you wonder who may have been the target? We all know the motives.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39859058

This is insane,

could they not have waited another week for an islamic attack??

511

Why did you describe this as a terrorist plot? Terrorism is an attack on innocent civilians for a political aim. It's just an assassination plot because they have a specific target who they believe is complicit in the destruction of German culture.

Peregrinus

The "desire to frame to frame refugees for the plot" provides the political aim.

The suggested targets named ("former German president Joachim Gauck and Justice Minister Heiko Maas") are both civilians.

Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism.

Realt Dearg Sec

511 wrote: »

Why did you describe this as a terrorist plot? Terrorism is an attack on innocent civilians for a political aim. It's just an assassination plot because they have a specific target who they believe is complicit in the destruction of German culture.

Where did you get your definition of terrorism?

Here's the FBI's:

FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Nothing about innocent civilians there. But I know there are what might charitably be called competing definitions of the term.

Your Face

Shades of 1933.

Beyondgone

Nationalist assassination plot, surely?

Which they also bungled, which gives yet another lie to the old "German efficiency" myth.

Peregrinus

Beyondgone wrote: »

Nationalist assassination plot, surely?

Obviously, yes. The issue is why anyone would think that a nationalist assassination plot was not terrorism. Especially when conducted with the motive of promoting the victimisation of refugees and/or Muslims.

As others have pointed out, there are varying definitions of "terrorism" floating around, but on the definition that 511 offered in post #5, this is quite clearly terrorism. It's terrorism on pretty well any of the commonly-used definitions, frankly.

Samaris

What Peregrinus said. This was absolutely a terrorist plot. Just because it wasn't Muslims doing it doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism. It was intended to push a political standpoint by violence and terror, particularly striking at a specific population.

Terrorism doesn't have to be random in its selection of targets.

Beyondgone

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, yes. The issue is why anyone would think that a nationalist assassination plot was not terrorism. Especially when conducted with the motive of promoting the victimisation of refugees and/or Muslims.

As others have pointed out, there are varying definitions of "terrorism" floating around, but on the definition that 511 offered in post #5, this is quite clearly terrorism. It's terrorism on pretty well any of the commonly-used definitions, frankly.

Not really. Was the assassination of Kennedy "terrorism"? The "terrorism" phrase gets bandied about a little too liberally. Or whenever suits. Makes no odds as the people involved were obviously imbeciles anyway. I suppose "Imbecile Assassination Plot in Germany" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Collie D

The German army has barracks in France?!

Samaris

Beyondgone wrote: »

Not really. Was the assassination of Kennedy "terrorism"? The "terrorism" phrase gets bandied about a little too liberally. Or whenever suits. Makes no odds as the people involved were obviously imbeciles anyway. I suppose "Imbecile Assassination Plot in Germany" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Barring the assassination of a high-profile politician, the Kennedy assassination fails to be in any way like this situation in motive and methodology. It wasn't terrorism, it was murder (or assassination). This one, with its clearly terrorist motivations and building on earlier terrorist attacks, is absolutely terrorism - the attempt to coerce a population by fear and violence for concrete political aims.

Kennedy does not meet those criteria. This does.

I agree on "imbeciles" though.

Not relating to you, Beyondgone, or at least not specifically, more at the weird denialism in here already - is this honest-to-god because it's white nationalists rather than Muslims? I mean, is that really why this is being argued over rather than what actually happened and was plotted? -Why?-

Peregrinus

Beyondgone wrote: »

Not really. Was the assassination of Kennedy "terrorism"? The "terrorism" phrase gets bandied about a little too liberally. Or whenever suits. Makes no odds as the people involved were obviously imbeciles anyway. I suppose "Imbecile Assassination Plot in Germany" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

I'm not saying that every assassination is terrorism, and in particular I'm not saying that the assassination of Kennedy was terrorism. But you yourself identified this as a nationalist assassination plot, and nationalism is a political philosophy and movement; you've got your political motivation right there.

I agree; "terrorism" does get bandied around a bit much. The US, for instance, use to characterise attacks on the US army in Iraq as terrorism; I think that's rather doubtful. The Saudi government considers the expression of atheist opinions (within Saudi Arabia) to be a form of terrorism; I can't agree.

But that doesn't mean that the term has no content or meaning at all. The fact that some things can't be called terrorist doesn't mean that nothing can be called terrorist. I suggest terrorism requires three things.

1. It involves the use of force or violence, or at the threat of force or violence (e.g. bomb scares, even when there is no bomb).

2. I has to be directed at noncombatants. You may consider attacks on soldiers to be justified or unjustified, but they're not terrorism. Attacks on random targets, or on public servants or politicians, can be terrorist.

3. It has to have a motive, wholly or substantially, of promoting fear, anxiety, terror in the populace so as to undermine political support for your opponents or their policies.

I think this plot, assuming it is as alleged, fairly clearly ticks all three boxes. It was violent; it was directed at a noncombatant; the motive was both to terrify Muslims/refugees (by fomenting hatred against them) and to undermine support for refugee/migration policies (by leading the public to think that they were the proximate cause of assassinations).

tomwaterford

Beyondgone wrote: »

Not really. Was the assassination of Kennedy "terrorism"? The "terrorism" phrase gets bandied about a little too liberally. Or whenever suits. Makes no odds as the people involved were obviously imbeciles anyway. I suppose "Imbecile Assassination Plot in Germany" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

Was always lead to believe terrorism was the use of violence to further political aims??


Seems pretty open and shut case here of terrorism tbh

Peregrinus

tomwaterford wrote: »

Was always lead to believe terrorism was the use of violence to further political aims??

If you accept that definition, then you must conclude that all wars are terrorist, including defensive wars and wars of independence.

A key element that terrorism requires is, well, terror. I think the purpose of your violence has to be to terrify, with a view to eroding political support for whatever or whoever you oppose.

tomwaterford

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you accept that definition, then you must conclude that all wars are terrorist, including defensive wars and wars of independence.

I know....but this is what I always assumed terrorism to be anyway
(Though that lad in the dortMonday attack....possible criminal attack-motivated by greed)


..but I find it unfathomable someone would try to claim this wasnt a terrorist plot tbh. ...but the alt right are always right :rolleyes:

Realt Dearg Sec

Beyondgone wrote: »

Nationalist assassination plot, surely?

.

You're going to have to explain why that should preclude it being a terrorist attack, the distinction you're making is lost on me.

It is interesting that it's only in situations like this where we end up in a semantic argument. If it was an Isis assassination plot would there be people offering details, nuanced definitions of the word terrorist? Or would we be discussing the actual plot? Terrorism is very easily defined, it only becomes problematic because we want to find a definition that either excludes violence we support, or we want to reserve the word for a particular brand of violence (Muslims being the brand du jour these days obviously).

Richard Hillman

The burgeonings of the civil war.

The_Kew_Tour

France and Germany will have Civil unrest within next decade or so you would fear. Merkel is not going down well with lot of Germans.

Realt Dearg Sec

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

France and Germany will have Civil unrest within next decade or so you would fear. Merkel is not going down well with lot of Germans.

If only they had some means of ousting her peacefully and consensually. I dunno, elections or something like that. Ah well.

Allah snackbar

Good thread about the definition of terrorism , can a mod change the thread title please

The_Kew_Tour

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

If only they had some means of ousting her peacefully and consensually. I dunno, elections or something like that. Ah well.

Ya it's coming up

NinjaKirby

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism.

Love this part.

You can't disagree with people online anymore without being labelled as the worst thing imaginable.

Everything in this world is black or white and any exploration of grey areas will not be tolerated, right?

There are a broad rage of acts that could be regarded as terrorism and this would certainly fall into that category... arguably. I think it would be classed as terrorism but maybe other people disagree and that's OK, really.

The idea that anyone who says otherwise is somehow an apologist for terrorism is, frankly, idiotic.

If you were trying to make yourself look like an utter buffoon here then you've succeeded. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for buffoonery. :rolleyes:

NinjaKirby

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You're going to have to explain why that should preclude it being a terrorist attack, the distinction you're making is lost on me.

It is interesting that it's only in situations like this where we end up in a semantic argument. If it was an Isis assassination plot would there be people offering details, nuanced definitions of the word terrorist? Or would we be discussing the actual plot? Terrorism is very easily defined, it only becomes problematic because we want to find a definition that either excludes violence we support, or we want to reserve the word for a particular brand of violence (Muslims being the brand du jour these days obviously).

I'm sure I read somewhere that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or something like that.

I think people should at least be entitled to argue the differences, even if they are ultimately shown to be wrong.

I would tend to think of a terrorist attack as being an attack perpetrated on the general civilian population for some kind of political goal and with an organisation publicly taking responsibility for that attack.

I wouldn't necessarily classify an incident like Columbine as a terrorist attack and I wouldn't classify an assassination of a politician as a terrorist attack but maybe others would?

Seems like once again the American desire for catchy buzzwords reigns supreme.

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

It was actually the OP who called it a terrorist plot.

NinjaKirby

Samaris wrote: »

Is this honest-to-god because it's white nationalists rather than Muslims? I mean, is that really why this is being argued over rather than what actually happened and was plotted? -Why?-

I don't think so. The original article is from the BBC and they don't mention terrorism at all. I'm not so sure that the BBC has any white nationalist leanings.

It looks like they were planning to assassinate a politician who was supportive of Germany's immigration policies.

I would personally call this a terrorist plot BUT the article posted has itself referred to this as an "assassination plot".

A summary...

BBC Article: "Assassination Plot"
Billy86: "Terrorist Assassination Plot"
551: "Isn't this just an assassination plot?"
Peregrinus: "No. It's terrorism and anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism"
Me: WTF??

Billy86

Allah snackbar wrote: »

Good thread about the definition of terrorism , can a mod change the thread title please

Why change the thread title when the thread is about a terrorist assassination plot in Germany, as is the OP? It would make more sense to get back on topic.

GLaDOS

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldiers-false-flag-arrests-refugees-assassinate-plot-far-right-left-wing-politicians-terror-a7726676.html

A second soldier involved has been arrested

duloxetineteva

These lads were mentally ill yes ?

Realt Dearg Sec

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or something like that.

I think people should at least be entitled to argue the differences, even if they are ultimately shown to be wrong.

I would tend to think of a terrorist attack as being an attack perpetrated on the general civilian population for some kind of political goal and with an organisation publicly taking responsibility for that attack.

I wouldn't necessarily classify an incident like Columbine as a terrorist attack and I wouldn't classify an assassination of a politician as a terrorist attack but maybe others would?

Seems like once again the American desire for catchy buzzwords reigns supreme.

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

It was actually the OP who called it a terrorist plot.

I wouldn't have a problem with a discussion of the definition of terrorism, except that the definition is, in fact, completely uncontroversial. The only thing that ever changes is our willingness to apply that definition consistently. Your own definition seems to me to be perfectly fine, except for the part about taking responsibility for the attack. I've never seen that included in a definition before (I'll come back to that though).

Regarding the BBC's use or non-use of the term, I'm not exactly why that would matter to this discussion. Either the plot was terrorist or it wasn't. Whether the BBC call it terrorist is really irrelevant to that question. Where it IS relevant, is in a broader discussion of WHY the definition of terrorism is so controversial in the first place. The willingness of mainstream media to use the term "terrorist" is, obviously, very important in terms of how our understanding of these things is shaped. But it doesn't change the definition. The only question is whether the act fits the definition. I would submit that it does.

To return to the question of taking responsibility. One of the phenomena that has emerged lately is radical Islamic "lone wolf" attacks.
These are frequently claimed by ISIS, but most analysts agree that in many cases there are no provable links to ISIS. Now, it could be ISIS inspired,
but it also could be that ISIS like taking responsibility without having had to do anything whatsoever. Anyway the question is, if ISIS did NOT take responsibility, by your definition these acts would not be terrorist. By the FBI's they would.

Realt Dearg Sec

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

From the BBC's guidance policy on the use of the term "terrorist":

"We try to avoid the use of the term "terrorist" without attribution...
The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent", and "militant". "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/terrorism-language/guidance-full

By that policy there is nothing unusual in their not describing it as terrorist and certainly it wouldn't preclude the possibility of anyone else describing it as such.

Peregrinus

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I'm sure I read somewhere that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or something like that.

That's quite right. To describe someone as a "freedom fighter" is to call attention to his objectives - namely, freedom. To describe him as a "terrorist" is to call attention to his tactics - namely, terrrorism.

It's entlrely possible to employ terrorism as a tactic in pursuit of the objective of freedom. Why not?

In such cases, whether you call a combatant a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" doesn't necessarily tell me a great deal about the combatant. But it does disclose how you feel about the combatant.

NinjaKirby wrote: »

Just an note here. The BBC article actually describes this as an "assassination plot" and does not mention terrorism or terrorists. Those BBC terrorism apologists, eh Peregrinus?

It was actually the OP who called it a terrorist plot.

I've never said that simply failing to describe terrorism as terrorism amounts to an apology for terrorism. But explicitly denying that terrorism is terrorism is indeed to act as an apologist for terrrorism.

NinjaKirby

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem with a discussion of the definition of terrorism, except that the definition is, in fact, completely uncontroversial. The only thing that ever changes is our willingness to apply that definition consistently. Your own definition seems to me to be perfectly fine, except for the part about taking responsibility for the attack. I've never seen that included in a definition before (I'll come back to that though).

Regarding the BBC's use or non-use of the term, I'm not exactly why that would matter to this discussion. Either the plot was terrorist or it wasn't. Whether the BBC call it terrorist is really irrelevant to that question. Where it IS relevant, is in a broader discussion of WHY the definition of terrorism is so controversial in the first place. The willingness of mainstream media to use the term "terrorist" is, obviously, very important in terms of how our understanding of these things is shaped. But it doesn't change the definition. The only question is whether the act fits the definition. I would submit that it does.

To return to the question of taking responsibility. One of the phenomena that has emerged lately is radical Islamic "lone wolf" attacks.
These are frequently claimed by ISIS, but most analysts agree that in many cases there are no provable links to ISIS. Now, it could be ISIS inspired,
but it also could be that ISIS like taking responsibility without having had to do anything whatsoever. Anyway the question is, if ISIS did NOT take responsibility, by your definition these acts would not be terrorist. By the FBI's they would.

I agree with everything you've said here.

It just seems odd to me that sometimes when a poster disagrees with something or maybe even just questions something there's a certain reaction that involves implying that the poster is maybe not the best kind of person.

You know the type of comment...

"Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism."

"I find it unfathomable someone would try to claim this wasn't a terrorist plot tbh. ...but the alt right are always right"

Peregrinus

NinjaKirby wrote: »

I agree with everything you've said here.

It just seems odd to me that sometimes when a poster disagrees with something or maybe even just questions something there's a certain reaction that involves implying that the poster is maybe not the best kind of person.

You know the type of comment...

"Yup, terrorism, no question. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for terrorism."

"I find it unfathomable someone would try to claim this wasn't a terrorist plot tbh. ...but the alt right are always right"

Well, I was perhaps a bit strong. But 511 himself proposed a definition of terrorism ("attack on innocent civilians for a political end") which clearly encompassed this case, but without missing a beat went on to say that it was "just an assassination plot" becuase the perpetrators beleived their victims were "complicit in the destruction of German culture". The implication is that if actions which would otherwise be terrorist are justified by an appeal to that belief, they cease to be terrorism. How is that not an apology for terrorism?

Beyondgone

GLaDOS wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-soldiers-false-flag-arrests-refugees-assassinate-plot-far-right-left-wing-politicians-terror-a7726676.html

A second soldier bungler involved has been arrested

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.
I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

wes

Beyondgone wrote: »

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.
I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

Violent nationalism can also be terrorism........

Also, in a democracy, they can vote for there leaders like everyone else. These lads are no different than any other terrorists, and the ambivalence on what was clearly an act of terror is rather disturbing.

At the end of the day, it was always inevitable that White supremacists, that White supremacists would increase there terrorism, as far to many choose to ignore the danger, ever after notable attacks in Norway, Canada, the US and Germany, as well as other attacks on refugees around Europe as well. There world view is remarkable similar to Islamic extremists, with want to return things to a pure, near utopian golden age, that never existed as they imagine it.

Beyondgone

wes wrote: »

Violent nationalism can also be terrorism........

Also, in a democracy, they can vote for there leaders like everyone else. These lads are no different than any other terrorists, and the ambivalence on what was clearly an act of terror is rather disturbing.

.

Is it? Disturbing how? I'm ambivalent when it comes to "Muslim Terrorism" too if that helps. I can see their viewpoint(however batsh1t I may regard it to be) - they have a strongly held ideology and use violence to promote/pursue that cause. Hence, because I can "see their point" while not agreeing with their point, I find myself ambivalent towards it.

Is it their use of "violence" vis a vis my "ambivalence" that disturbs you? Well we in the West routinely use violence. Pretty much every day as it happens. We bomb, shoot, use missiles etc etc. We're quite the violent puppies when it suits us, so to say "Ohh, all violence is bad, no one use violence" is quite silly really. We're experts in extreme violence. I'm again, ambivalent to that too. If we ("The West")elect to drop all violent measures as a matter of principle, then, erm, things might not end that well for us/might work out fantastic - Internationally. Hence, ambivalent. If that clarifies things..

Samaris

Beyondgone wrote: »

fyp.

Anyway, I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism. The world and its mother may disagree. Pity about them.
I'm not sure if it's the first case of people who vehemently oppose mass-immigration taking up arms, but it's definitely one of the most incompetent. For that alone, it is un-noteworthy.
Do I understand their motivation? Yup.
Do I agree? The Juries out, time will tell, I'm mildly ambivalent right now.

Christ on a bike.

I am absolutely 100% against assassinating people for a random objective. I can understand "we must take out this leader to avoid having to go to war and kill hundreds or thousands of civilians", although I'd be dubious about the justification.

But to support (or even "be ambivalent about/jury is out on") murder for the sake of blaming an ethnic group so that the general population turns against them and/or visits violence on them to drive them out... (and whatever about pity being rendered to those who use a term correctly, okay-doke then)

See "Christ on a bike" above.

wes

Beyondgone wrote: »

Is it? Disturbing how? I'm ambivalent when it comes to "Muslim Terrorism" too if that helps. I can see their viewpoint(however batsh1t I may regard it to be) - they have a strongly held ideology and use violence to promote/pursue that cause. Hence, because I can "see their point" while not agreeing with their point, I find myself ambivalent towards it.

Is it their use of "violence" vis a vis my "ambivalence" that disturbs you? Well we in the West routinely use violence. Pretty much every day as it happens. We bomb, shoot, use missiles etc etc. We're quite the violent puppies when it suits us, so to say "Ohh, all violence is bad, no one use violence" is quite silly really. We're experts in extreme violence. I'm again, ambivalent to that too. If we ("The West")elect to drop all violent measures as a matter of principle, then, erm, things might not end that well for us/might work out fantastic - Internationally. Hence, ambivalent. If that clarifies things..

Thanks for the clarification. I can certainly understand someone elses pov, but when it comes to white supremacists and ISIS, and there ilk, its pretty clear that there insane, and that there aims aren't legitimate, unlike say a national liberation movement, whose aims I can understand (e.g. self determination, or ending apartheid), but whose tactics I would disagree with.

ISIS and white supremacists aims are pure societies, at the cost of the destruction of anyone who doesn't fit into that. These aren't legitimate aims imho.

Realt Dearg Sec

Beyondgone wrote: »

I don't regard this as terrorism, I regard this as violent nationalism.

Could you explain how you distinguish these two?

Beyondgone

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Could you explain how you distinguish these two?

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

Allah snackbar

Billy86 wrote: »

Why change the thread title when the thread is about a terrorist assassination plot in Germany, as is the OP? It would make more sense to get back on topic.

You don't really understand sarcasm do you ? :rolleyes:

MonkieSocks

it would only be a german terrorist attack if they shouted "Vorsprung Durka Durka"

B_Wayne

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

That's a weird definition, the intent of the assassination attempt was to cause terror and to advance the agenda of modern day Nazis. Some assassinations are simply to kill a person, this one had a clear political aim and was very much so with the intent of terrorising the public.

The fact that you are uncertain on whether you agree with their goal is deeply worrying. You do sympathise with their motives. You sympathise with a group that wish to advance hatred...

Really Interested

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

What if a group shot a world leader, in the hope that the death would be assumed to be the work of another group, leading to a war where many die. By your definition that would be terror.

CalamariFritti

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

France and Germany will have Civil unrest within next decade or so you would fear. Merkel is not going down well with lot of Germans.

Ye that's why they going to elect her into office the 4th time in a row.

Beyondgone

B_Wayne wrote: »

That's a weird definition, the intent of the assassination attempt was to cause terror and to advance the agenda of modern day Nazis. Some assassinations are simply to kill a person, this one had a clear political aim and was very much so with the intent of terrorising the public.

The fact that you are uncertain on whether you agree with their goal is deeply worrying. You do sympathise with their motives. You sympathise with a group that wish to advance hatred...

Never said that though. I said I was ambivalent - only in as much as I can take their point of view on board and come to the conclusion that, for them, with their outlook, this would be regarded as a good move.

"For them" being the operative word. Same as I can take on board the fact that for ISIS, an attack in Europe would be "a good thing". I've no desire to hop into either camp, but I can comprehend where they are coming from.

It's called "seeing things from another persons point of view" and is a wondrous talent. Pity more wouldn't try it. Might be less need for violent nationalists or terrorists, or both.

For all any of us know, they might be right btw, or ISIS might be right, or the Liberals might be right - only time and how the next few decades play out will tell.

B_Wayne

My god, you are full of rubbish... Do you also hold the view that the KKK might turn out to be right?

AnGaelach

As a far-right extremist I look forward to the inevitable Bundeswehr coup.

Jamiekelly

Beyondgone wrote: »

Okey dokey.
If Isis nipped over, shot Teresa May then popped across the pond and shot Donald Trump and his Minister for killing Arabic People - I'd regard that as Violent nationalism.

If Isis nips over, shoots a load of random innocent people in a nightclub, lets off a bomb on Oxford st and then blows a hole in a NY subway train, killing 40 people innocently on their way to work, IMV, that's Terrorism.

If you get my drift.

I think you just clearly demonstrated that you don't know what terrorism is.

But that's alright you seem to have quite a solid backlog of posts trying to defend the indefensible, or at the very least purposely blurring the lines.

Like in another thread regarding torture you were more than willing to excuse torture against those that you think deserved it, all the while trying to pass it off as "justice" not torture.

If an international terrorist organisation shoots and kills one elected representative then that is a terrorist attack on the principle of democracy.

Remember MP Jo Cox getting killed by that nutter in the UK who was yelling "Britain first" while stabbing her to death? That's terrorism to me, the English dictionary and the majority of people who take democracy seriously.

Whether he shouts Allah hu akbar or Britain first is virtually irrelevant as the result is the same regardless. Blood spilled, democracy undermined and a successful rallying cry for other wannabe terrorists.

If your only distinction between terrorism and "violent nationalism" is body count then you seriously need to realign your moral compass.

I enjoyed your use of "popped across the pond" and "nip over to". Language always gives people away, especially when they make terrorist hypotheticals sound like a trip down to the neighbours or to the shop. Shows just how flippant you are when it comes to human life.