12 minutes ago, ScarletDraconis said:

One train attack on how many attacks in total? And I think you're not aware that a great, great majority of those 'sexually assaulted' women were actually fake as police concluded, while most attackers were actually of german nationality... :)

That one train attack proves to you that terrorists have taken advantage of the open border policy. Also, you're incorrect about the sexual assaults being committed by mostly people of German nationality.

"Chief Prosecutor Ulrich Bremer stated that "the overwhelming majority" of suspects were asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who had recently arrived in Germany. He refuted recent media reports that claimed otherwise. By 9 April, police in Cologne had identified 153 suspects, 24 of whom were in investigative custody. 149 of the 153 suspects of the Cologne crimes were non-Germans, many of them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants."

No, it doesn't prove anything. If the majority of the attacks were caused by immigrants who took advantage of the open borer policy, yes, it would show that indeed it is a bad idea. But as long as the good weighs more than the bad... :)

As for that quote, I wouldn't mind a source :)

Thoughts go out to the victims families.

It seems these days half my brain needs to be dedicated to thinking of victims of terrorism and war. I can see a trend starting in this world and it is really quite concerning. When I say concerning I don't mean I fear when i'm out in public (too be honest i've never once thought about that ever in public) but rather that there is so much shit happening in the world right now and it is concerning to think about what it may to lead to.

5 hours ago, ScarletDraconis said:

No, it doesn't prove anything. If the majority of the attacks were caused by immigrants who took advantage of the open borer policy, yes, it would show that indeed it is a bad idea. But as long as the good weighs more than the bad... :)

As for that quote, I wouldn't mind a source :)

Well, I don't know what it takes to convince you. The evidence I have presented to back up my claim is sufficient. If you don't believe so, that's on you. 

Source: http://m.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/a-1085716.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=

1 hour ago, SkillfulCorpse said:

It seems these days half my brain needs to be dedicated to thinking of victims of terrorism and war.

And still, it's only the ones you know about, or well, the ones our medias agree to speak about. For example, today, in Afghanistan, ~70 people got killed in a terrorist attack ISIS claimed to be theirs. But since it's Afghanistan, no one talks about it... :(

6 hours ago, MayhemMercenary said:

You know what I meant. Terrorist attacks in Europe have spiked in frequency in the past 1-2 years.

Hmmmm, I wonder what has happened in the past 2-3 years that would possibly be a cause to this? When you have an extremist group such as ISIS make huge gains and increase their global influence you are going to have an increase in attacks. The same thing happened in the mid-2000s when things were heating up in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were several large attacks in the UK and Spain. However, I wouldn't say that attacks have "spiked", there have been an increase in big attacks but 5 or so major attacks over the span of a couple years doesn't really feel like a spike.

That all being said, ISIS does not actually plan or carry out these attacks. They do not have the resources or manpower to do so. What ISIS does is create propaganda to try and convince people who are already in other countries to carry out attacks in their hometowns because ISIS cannot afford to send people from Syria or Iraq to carry out these attacks. They convince other people to carry out lone wolf attacks and then those attacks happen they take credit for them even though they provided no planning, funding, or other resources to the attacks.

7 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

That all being said, ISIS does not actually plan or carry out these attacks. They do not have the resources or manpower to do so. What ISIS does is create propaganda to try and convince people who are already in other countries to carry out attacks in their hometowns because ISIS cannot afford to send people from Syria or Iraq to carry out these attacks. They convince other people to carry out lone wolf attacks and then those attacks happen they take credit for them even though they provided no planning, funding, or other resources to the attacks.

The problem with that though, is that all these refugee's or not that are coming from Middle Eastern countries are potential candidates for the ISIS propaganda. Whether or not they were "extreme" prior to landing in main land Europe, or North America is neither here nor there, as again, propaganda is what influences their cause. The other large problem is that these refugee's are coming from a culture that is vastly different than European/North American culture. There has been a very, very large spike in attacks on these refugee's here in Canada since the 75 Thousand refugee's from Syria have landed here, there are a number of reasons as to why it happens but the big reason is that these refugee's refuse to adhere to our way of life and while I don't condone attacking another human regardless of culture, I can understand why. It's gotten to the point where a handful of Police departments here have started putting "Police" in Arabic on their cars, and I don't think I need to explain as to how asinine that is. 

1 hour ago, l3ubba said:

Hmmmm, I wonder what has happened in the past 2-3 years that would possibly be a cause to this? When you have an extremist group such as ISIS make huge gains and increase their global influence you are going to have an increase in attacks. The same thing happened in the mid-2000s when things were heating up in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were several large attacks in the UK and Spain. However, I wouldn't say that attacks have "spiked", there have been an increase in big attacks but 5 or so major attacks over the span of a couple years doesn't really feel like a spike.

That all being said, ISIS does not actually plan or carry out these attacks. They do not have the resources or manpower to do so. What ISIS does is create propaganda to try and convince people who are already in other countries to carry out attacks in their hometowns because ISIS cannot afford to send people from Syria or Iraq to carry out these attacks. They convince other people to carry out lone wolf attacks and then those attacks happen they take credit for them even though they provided no planning, funding, or other resources to the attacks.

This graph shows what I would consider a spike. I suppose "spike" is a subjective term. 

 

Edited July 23, 20169 yr by MayhemMercenary

26 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

 However, I wouldn't say that attacks have "spiked", there have been an increase in big attacks but 5 or so major attacks over the span of a couple years doesn't really feel like a spike.

Let's go trough some "major" attacks set in Europe last year, and compare it to 2005-2006.

2015.01.07; Charlie Hedebo attacks. 12 dead.

2015.01.08; Attack on a policewoman in France.

2015.01.09; 4 Jewish persons are killed in France.

2015.01.29; 1 person is stabbed by a man shouting a "Jihadi war cry" in Belfast.

2015.02.14; A gunman shoots into a café where a speech is held by a cartoonist critical of islam. Copenhagen.

2015.02.15; A Jewish man is shot to death in a synagoga in Copenhagen.

2015.05.10; Eight police officers are killed in Macedonia by Islamists.

2015.06.21; Three people are killed by a "mentally ill" man with an intrest for Jihadism in Graz, Austria.

2015.06.26; A "normal" muslim attacks a factory in France, decapitating one worker.

2015.11.13; 89 people are killed in the Bataclan during a concert.

2015.11.13; 39 people are killed in resturants, bars and cafés all over Paris.

And now 2005.

2005.07.07; 52 commuters dead in attacks in the busy London traffic. (This was *the" only major attack on European soil.)

 

It is a spike. A large fucking one, too.

 

Edited July 23, 20169 yr by KarlieTheKloss

2 hours ago, KarlieTheKloss said:

Let's go trough some "major" attacks set in Europe last year, and compare it to 2005-2006.

2015.01.07; Charlie Hedebo attacks. 12 dead.

2015.01.08; Attack on a policewoman in France.

2015.01.09; 4 Jewish persons are killed in France.

2015.01.29; 1 person is stabbed by a man shouting a "Jihadi war cry" in Belfast.

2015.02.14; A gunman shoots into a café where a speech is held by a cartoonist critical of islam. Copenhagen.

2015.02.15; A Jewish man is shot to death in a synagoga in Copenhagen.

2015.05.10; Eight police officers are killed in Macedonia by Islamists.

2015.06.21; Three people are killed by a "mentally ill" man with an intrest for Jihadism in Graz, Austria.

2015.06.26; A "normal" muslim attacks a factory in France, decapitating one worker.

2015.11.13; 89 people are killed in the Bataclan during a concert.

2015.11.13; 39 people are killed in resturants, bars and cafés all over Paris.

And now 2005.

2005.07.07; 52 commuters dead in attacks in the busy London traffic. (This was *the" only major attack on European soil.)

 

It is a spike. A large fucking one, too.

 

Ok first, the attacks in Paris which you have listed as two separate events were part of one large attack. Second, the police ruled out any religious motive in the attack in Graz the fact that he was a Muslim might as well be a coincidence. Third, you have severely skewed the Macedonian shooting, that was part of an ethinic Albanian uprising and had nothing to do with Islam. And lastly, I can't find anything that says the police woman who was killed after the Charlie Hebdo attack was linked to terrorism but I'll let you have that one. So out of the 11 you listed only 8 of them are actually linked to Islamic terrorism. You also failed to list the attempted bombings that happened in London two weeks after the first bombings. Luckily the bombers were stopped before they could detonate their bombs but it was still a very close call. 2005 vs 2015 might have more attacks but I am referring to the mid-2000s in general, not just one specific year.

Something else to take into consideration is the number of casualties these attacks have caused. In 2004 an attack on the Madrid train system killed a 192 people and injured over 2,000. Even all the attacks you listed combined don't amount to that number. This is a sign that ISIS doesn't have as much influence as people think outside of the middle east. They can't do nearly as much damage as Al-Qaeda did at the height of their power.

58 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

Ok first, the attacks in Paris which you have listed as two separate events were part of one large attack. Second, the police ruled out any religious motive in the attack in Graz the fact that he was a Muslim might as well be a coincidence. Third, you have severely skewed the Macedonian shooting, that was part of an ethinic Albanian uprising and had nothing to do with Islam. And lastly, I can't find anything that says the police woman who was killed after the Charlie Hebdo attack was linked to terrorism but I'll let you have that one. So out of the 11 you listed only 8 of them are actually linked to Islamic terrorism. You also failed to list the attempted bombings that happened in London two weeks after the first bombings. Luckily the bombers were stopped before they could detonate their bombs but it was still a very close call. 2005 vs 2015 might have more attacks but I am referring to the mid-2000s in general, not just one specific year.

Something else to take into consideration is the number of casualties these attacks have caused. In 2004 an attack on the Madrid train system killed a 192 people and injured over 2,000. Even all the attacks you listed combined don't amount to that number. This is a sign that ISIS doesn't have as much influence as people think outside of the middle east. They can't do nearly as much damage as Al-Qaeda did at the height of their power.

I listed it as two entites because, well, one was against cafés and resturants, and the other against a crowd in a concert hall. We think in diffrent manners.

And also, sorry for not reading up.

But, ISIL can do more damage. They don't do it large scale, like Al-Qaeda. Smaller plots require smaller groups, which leads to a smaller chance of getting cought with your pants down. And let's do some more research, shall we? And obligatory maths, to go along.

Here are my numbers that I calculated using wikipedia sources. The number are death counts from attacks by the two groups. Al-Qaeda is shortened in the first paragraph to "AlQ"

AlQ
 2
 200+
 3000  19 1 3 202 13 39 45 12 57 22 192 1 6 9 54 8 17 40 29 95 117 178 74 100 160 74 85 215 135 152 198 101 155 85 100 110 133



ISIL
75 331 449 94 54 38
4 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 10 2 22 142 4 1 27 38 21 1 130 33 102 224 43 130 13 14 60 16
60 12 4 4 57 83 4 32 26 33 2 90 28 7 49 2 23 325 7 84

ISIL:

2016:840 
2014: 9
2015: 1020  
2013: 1041
_________
TOTAL: 2910 since 2013

Al-Qaeda

TOTAL: 6004 since 1992

And yes, Al-Qaeda has killed twice as many, in 21 more years. Note that the wikipedia article about ISIL starts at 2013.

This means Al-Qaeda has an average with 250 kills/year.

ISIL on the other hand got 970 kills/year. To round that off, ISIL kills four times as many persons per year on average than Al-Qaeda does. ISIL is with no doubt, a more dangerous group, that can do a lot more damage than Al-Queda ever would.

Links that helped me; 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-have-been-killed-by-ISIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

 

Also, sorry if my numbers don't add up correctly.

First, I would like to say that my heart goes out to the people of Munich. Given the amount of violence we've seen in recent weeks, you would think your level of sympathy is tapped out. However, the scenes on television and the realization of that innocent lives were lost always touches you.

I think advancements in communications allow people who are predisposed to certain behavior patterns to nurture and expand those negative traits. Twenty years ago, it could take years for an individual to gain the contacts and trusts to enter a terrorist organization. Today, one merely needs to connect to the a social media site. The nodes once required have largely evaporated. The black-market and even legitimate market is just fine.

The profile of terrorists have also changed. They are very similar to mass-murderers, in part because the Internet provides them with the ability to connect to different groups and build beliefs that might not be the primary motivating factor for their ultimate act. Its a real headache with no easy solutions.

I'm not an expert in terrorism and Mass Murder in the European countries. I studied the attacks in Russia back in the early 2000's, but have fallen off in recent years. I'm very interested in learning the personality profiles of recent attackers in France and Germany.

3 hours ago, KarlieTheKloss said:

I listed it as two entites because, well, one was against cafés and resturants, and the other against a crowd in a concert hall. We think in diffrent manners.

And also, sorry for not reading up.

But, ISIL can do more damage. They don't do it large scale, like Al-Qaeda. Smaller plots require smaller groups, which leads to a smaller chance of getting cought with your pants down. And let's do some more research, shall we? And obligatory maths, to go along.

Here are my numbers that I calculated using wikipedia sources. The number are death counts from attacks by the two groups. Al-Qaeda is shortened in the first paragraph to "AlQ"

AlQ
 2
 200+
 3000  19 1 3 202 13 39 45 12 57 22 192 1 6 9 54 8 17 40 29 95 117 178 74 100 160 74 85 215 135 152 198 101 155 85 100 110 133



ISIL
75 331 449 94 54 38
4 1 1 1 3 1 4 2 10 2 22 142 4 1 27 38 21 1 130 33 102 224 43 130 13 14 60 16
60 12 4 4 57 83 4 32 26 33 2 90 28 7 49 2 23 325 7 84

ISIL:

2016:840 
2014: 9
2015: 1020  
2013: 1041
_________
TOTAL: 2910 since 2013

Al-Qaeda

TOTAL: 6004 since 1992

And yes, Al-Qaeda has killed twice as many, in 21 more years. Note that the wikipedia article about ISIL starts at 2013.

This means Al-Qaeda has an average with 250 kills/year.

ISIL on the other hand got 970 kills/year. To round that off, ISIL kills four times as many persons per year on average than Al-Qaeda does. ISIL is with no doubt, a more dangerous group, that can do a lot more damage than Al-Queda ever would.

Links that helped me; 

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-have-been-killed-by-ISIS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

 

Also, sorry if my numbers don't add up correctly.

If you look at those attacks linked to ISIS a lot are listed in Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable and places where ISIS has "troops on the ground". ISIS has not reached the level Al-Qaeda reached. Al-Qaeda was able to pull off the 9/11 attacks; that requires an enormous amount of planning resources which is something ISIS cannot do, they are not strong enough. ISIS resorts to convincing others to carry out lone wolf attacks without any support from ISIS because that is all ISIS can afford. They can't devote their resources to attacks in Europe and most certainly not in North America. ISIS is busy getting their assholes pounded in Iraq and Syria and as long as it stays that way they will not likely be able to get to the level of Al-Qaeda.

20 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

If you look at those attacks linked to ISIS a lot are listed in Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable and places where ISIS has "troops on the ground". ISIS has not reached the level Al-Qaeda reached. Al-Qaeda was able to pull off the 9/11 attacks; that requires an enormous amount of planning resources which is something ISIS cannot do, they are not strong enough. ISIS resorts to convincing others to carry out lone wolf attacks without any support from ISIS because that is all ISIS can afford. They can't devote their resources to attacks in Europe and most certainly not in North America. ISIS is busy getting their assholes pounded in Iraq and Syria and as long as it stays that way they will not likely be able to get to the level of Al-Qaeda.

ISIL managed to take down a plane. A feat that haven't been executed since 2004, in Russia by Chechen terrorists. That happened with bribing and lacking security.

Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous, since they are concist and is planning ahead. They play with rules. ISIL on the other hand, is an organization made of nutjobs. This results in them being less predictable, and thus harder to stop. And also, a lot of the Al-Qaeda attacks are from Iraq, so I'm not sure how it makes "Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable" a valid awnser.

1 hour ago, KarlieTheKloss said:

ISIL managed to take down a plane. A feat that haven't been executed since 2004, in Russia by Chechen terrorists. That happened with bribing and lacking security.

Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous, since they are concist and is planning ahead. They play with rules. ISIL on the other hand, is an organization made of nutjobs. This results in them being less predictable, and thus harder to stop. And also, a lot of the Al-Qaeda attacks are from Iraq, so I'm not sure how it makes "Iraq, Syria, and other countries that aren't very stable" a valid awnser.

I think ISIL was more active in Iraq and Syria. Al-Qaeda was more in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I agree their lack of organization and participation in netwar tactics make them less predictable and harder to cope with than Al-Qeada, even after they evolved to adopt some of ISIL's techniques.

10 hours ago, l3ubba said:

So out of the 11 you listed only 8 of them are actually linked to Islamic terrorism.

Without trying to debunk any of the points you were making to another person, I need to address this as it seems to be the elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore (not just on this forum board either, this applies much more broadly).

Only 8 of 11? I'm sorry, but that's what I'd call the soft bigotry of low expectations. We cant expect any better than 3 out of 11 people (predominantly Muslim) who commit terrorist attacks to do them for reasons that aren't based on religion? That's ridiculous. This is clearly a war of cultures between east and west, and America, Europe and the Middle East as individual sections of the world have some work to do to try and end this or at least try and turn this boiling over of aggression into a gentle simmer.

America only has about 3 million Muslims living within its borders, compared with the rest of the 1.5/1.6 billion all around the world. They are reasonably well integrated into the country, and while not all of them loosen their religious restrictions on things like clothing, prayer and treatment of wives; many of them do, especially as time goes on. They largely live in normal neighborhoods like everyone else, attend normal schools and integrate themselves with everyone else, becoming a useful member of society just like the rest of the people from other ethnicity that make America what it is today; an imperfect country, but a country I enjoy living in. Europe has a problem with its borders/immigration as some residents earlier in this topic mentioned, but it's possibly just as important to mention that they have a problem with properly integrating these people into the rest of society. Their Muslim residents live in slums, do not get the same education everyone else gets and do not have the same sort of police presence (if any) in these neighborhoods. There is also evident open racism, documented in the news and on the web (this is true of America as well, and is becoming more acceptable to show in public thanks to a certain candidate running for U.S. President). They house a large population of people who live in the west but may in fact still hate the west due to their lack of integration into society with everyone else. They likely feel like outcasts.

This is not only ill-planned, it's also dangerous, as events like the ones in Germany, France and England prove. I strongly suggest immigration overhaul for all of these countries (not ceasing it, but doing a better vetting process and pre-planning housing, educational and community outreach arrangements) to not just benefit the newcomers, but also the citizens that already live there.

Edited July 24, 20169 yr by unr3al

1 hour ago, unr3al said:

 They house a large population of people who live in the west but may in fact still hate the west due to their lack of integration into society with everyone else. They likely feel like outcasts.

I just want to mention that, having a relative in France, and visiting there often, I have seen and heard many of those people not really willing to integrate themselves either... Instead of integrating themselves and get used to the European way of life, they stick to their own traditions, beliefs and way of life, most of the time going as far as barely bothering to learn a language and keeping to speak in their own native tongue. The problem isn't only on one side, unfortunately... :(

On 23.7.2016 at 3:33 AM, nic227 said:

Yes, IMO an open border policy is complete nonsense, its just asking for trouble. With this system, Europe is not a group of countries, it is technically one country. Merkel allowed the millions of refugees to just waltz into the country and do whatever they want. That system ain't working so good.

 

“A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.”

- Ronald Reagan

Open borders within the EU is great, the thing is: If you want to have no borders inside, you need borders OUTside, which is the bullshit that went wrong the entire years!

 

 

Edit: @unr3al there is racism, in fact they are racist to the people in the country that belongs to them.

Edited July 24, 20169 yr by Sn0wf4ll

Y'all don't seem to grasp, that the guy in Munich ran amok. It wasn't a terrorist attack and he wasn't an immigrant, merely his family fled Iran many years ago.

28 minutes ago, Coltsmith said:

Y'all don't seem to grasp, that the guy in Munich ran amok. It wasn't a terrorist attack and he wasn't an immigrant, merely his family fled Iran many years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/

"..inspired by far-right terrorist Anders Breivik..."

Just because he doesn't belong to or pledge allegiance to a terrorist group doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist based on what he did. It's not his fault that he's a certain ethnicity, but he was brought up in a Muslim household, and was apparently picked on at school and ostracized for it. Another example of bad integration into the rest of society. Despite the psychotherapy he was receiving for his depression, he took out his frustrations on innocent people.