[Black Wolf]

There's a certain level of overlap in the aims of the islamists and the European far right. They both, to o e extent or another, want to spark a war between Islam and the West. The biggest difference is what they think the outcome of that war would be.

Incidentally, the geologist in me wants to point out that, done correctly, rock collecting can be super difficult.

[666maslo666]

As for strategic goals of ISIS and islamism in general, creating and expanding a potential breeding ground for terrorists and sympathisers right inside kuffar lands certainly ranks near the top of the list. So the goals of far left (called merely left in western Europe) and islamists overlap, too. Its almost like goals of all extremists tend to overlap..

[666maslo666]

With respect, I would also like to borrow AdmiralRalwood's post from the other thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=91203.msg1836687#msg1836687

This is basic sociology: ostracization leads to radicalization.
[...]
It turns out that if you demonize everyone who disagrees with you, they start to think the demons are more agreeable.

if you find nazis agreeable, ostracizing you was exactly the right decision

If you find islamists agreeable, limiting your immigration was exactly the right decision. The notion that immigration restrictions would lead to more immigrants becoming islamists is thus on shaky grounds as an argument, even if it was true (I think such an effect can indeed exist, but is minimal in all cases, the benefits from the restriction policy would far outweight it).

[AdmiralRalwood]

With respect, I would also like to borrow AdmiralRalwood's post from the other thread

no, and **** you for the false equivalence

[The E]

And just to be clear about what the current state of the investigation is: German authorities have issued an arrest warrant for one Anis Amri, whose temporary ID was found in the cab of the truck.
Now, Amri was already known to authorities as a potential terrorist: In fact, he was scheduled to be deported back in Summer, but because Tunisia was unable or unwilling to confirm his citizenship, that wasn't possible.

[Grizzly]

I'm appalled by the rather vultural reaction by the dutch and british far right, surprised by the german's ability to keep calm and carry on and also just sad.

I think there are two factors here: first, the right wing media is actually making noise in Germany, it just took them some time. The other factor is the hate speech legalization in Germany. It's one of the easiest ways to get in legal trouble in Germany, so just to make sure, a lot of people will not express their actual feelings regarding this in the public. Media being "responsible" is another thing, but I think the hate speech legalization has far more to do with the calm in Germany than the media itself.

This is a vision of Germany that has not been true since the reunification. The hate speech laws in Germany are rather specific: It basically boils down to "Don't be Hitler". They certainly haven't prevented any politicians for speaking their minds on the issue of refugees, as already mentoined by one of the other posters. I think that Germany being very aware of it's own history plays a bigger role here. Think of the reichstag fire and how it was abused to further a political agenda.

From what I have heard, there's also considerably less popular support for the acceptance of the refugees in Germany than the international and German media tries to portray.

Meh: It's not like the critique that Merkel got wasn't featured in our dutch newspapers, and it's not like there isn't a measure of the acceptance of the refugees which correlates roughly with the popularity of the AfD. The media tends to get hailed by the more right wing a lot, but after Trump, after Wilders and all that jazz it's rather obvious because Trump and Wilders are anti free-speech. The dutch media heckles politicians constantly, but it's only Wilders's party who calls for people to be fired over having expressed an opinion. Wilders shouts that he is being oppressed for knowingly and deliberately breaking the law, but openly calls for Sylvana Simons to be taken out of dutch politics for her own safety.

[zookeeper]

I think PH's point was less about the taking advantage and more about the fact that the political far-right is in fact making these attacks MORE effective.

The entire purpose of terrorism is (if you'll forgive me paraphrasing a mass-murdering scumbag) to cause terror.  A visceral reaction of fear to terrorism makes it MORE effective, not less.  Clamping down on civil liberties, fundamental freedoms, and minority populations is *precisely* what terrorists want to achieve when they carry out these attacks, and this is exactly what the political right would have countries do.

Maybe, but surely only insofar as clamping down weakens the country, causes internal strife, shapes their foreign policy, and so on. It's not like jihadist terrorists gain anything by some european country doing those things, as such. If basically everyone was on the political right and thus clamping down on <whatever the political right actually wants to clamp down on> was something about which there is no political division, then the terrorists wouldn't have achieved anything (except some fame that might attract recruits). Same thing if everyone collectively agreed to basically ignore what happened and to not enact any changes in policy because of it.

Maslo is a case study in this - he and his ilk would sacrifice the basic tenets of an open, democratic nation in the name of security and do precisely what the flavour-of-the-week-terrorist-assholes carrying out these attacks want to see done.  The more the West clamps down, the more victory notches they can carve (and the more potential victims remain to be abused in their territories).

That comes with the terribly big assumption that all they want is for the West to clamp down on taking in refugees so that they'll have more victims to abuse. Which might certainly be a big part of it, but also it'd be pretty myopic to think that those guys don't have a massive axe to grind with the West anyway, regardless of refugees.

Besides, it's being left rather unclear what the political right supposedly wants done now that would sacrifice democracy and liberties and all that. Mostly it seems to have been, since forever, about restricting MENA immigration.

[Phantom Hoover]

A cornerstone of ISIS' strategy is 'destroying the grey area' of moderate Islam that can cooperate with the West. This is pretty much exactly the far right's aim also.

[zookeeper]

A cornerstone of ISIS' strategy is 'destroying the grey area' of moderate Islam that can cooperate with the West. This is pretty much exactly the far right's aim also.

I'm sure that is ISIS' strategy. However, seems a bit silly to say that the far right wants that too. It's more like they believe that moderate islam doesn't exist in the first place, at least in the same way that for example moderate christianity exists. They might be thrilled if they could bring themselves to believe it's actually a thing, and their actions might drive more people to radicalism than moderatism, but of course they'd not rather have a randomly picked muslim be radical than moderate.

[The E]

I'm sure that is ISIS' strategy. However, seems a bit silly to say that the far right wants that too. It's more like they believe that moderate islam doesn't exist in the first place, at least in the same way that for example moderate christianity exists. They might be thrilled if they could bring themselves to believe it's actually a thing, and their actions might drive more people to radicalism than moderatism, but of course they'd not rather have a randomly picked muslim be radical than moderate.

ISIS wants us to treat muslims with suspicion and fear so that their argument about how being moderate means compromising muslim beliefs gains weight.
Modern neofascists want us to treat muslims with fear and suspicion because any moderate muslim may just be a few steps away from being a danger to society.

[zookeeper]

I'm sure that is ISIS' strategy. However, seems a bit silly to say that the far right wants that too. It's more like they believe that moderate islam doesn't exist in the first place, at least in the same way that for example moderate christianity exists. They might be thrilled if they could bring themselves to believe it's actually a thing, and their actions might drive more people to radicalism than moderatism, but of course they'd not rather have a randomly picked muslim be radical than moderate.

ISIS wants us to treat muslims with suspicion and fear so that their argument about how being moderate means compromising muslim beliefs gains weight.
Modern neofascists want us to treat muslims with fear and suspicion because any moderate muslim may just be a few steps away from being a danger to society.

Yes, of course. But it's far from obvious which ways of "treating muslims with fear and suspicion" would actually end up causing some moderate muslims to think that ISIS seems to have a point. Carting people off to internment camps en masse might do the trick, but for example the kind of strict immigration policies that maslo here likes to go on about are in no way obviously or necessarily going to cause that (unless I'm forgetting something). Implementing them in a dumb way might, just like long-term griefing of one's existing muslim citizenry might, but your policies have to get pretty extreme before it becomes impossible to implement them in a way that a reasonable person with more than half a brain wouldn't consider more agreeable than ISIS.

But I don't really know what kind of treatment and policies you have in mind exactly. If you mean the dumbest far-right suggestions available, like literally deporting all muslims or something, then I agree that one probably can't implement something like that without radicalizing even some reasonable people, but as you move toward more moderate and feasible ideas then it also becomes a lot easier to phrase and implement them in ways that are agreeable enough that only an unreasonable and stupid person would be radicalized as a result.

[666maslo666]

But it's far from obvious which ways of "treating muslims with fear and suspicion" would actually end up causing some moderate muslims to think that ISIS seems to have a point. Carting people off to internment camps en masse might do the trick, but for example the kind of strict immigration policies that maslo here likes to go on about are in no way obviously or necessarily going to cause that (unless I'm forgetting something).

Well said. There will be no carting off of people en masse to internment camps even if so-called "far right" wins the elections. There may be strict immigration policy, tough, but that will not radicalize any reasonable person at all.

I would also add that the whole immigration policy thing is obviously mostly orthogonal to the lives of muslims who are already legal citizens. Thats is an important reason why this rhetoric about it leading to their radicalisation turns out to be complete nonsense if you think about it for longer than 5 seconds.

On top of that, there are tens of thousands muslims currently living under a so-called "far right" regime in eastern Europe. Complete with a border fence and all that, what was the word, neofascist (LOL!) stuff.  It is so bad that I found several Hitlers hiding under the bed yesterday. send help

Not only are they not radicalizing at all, they are in fact some of the best integrated muslims ever.

Yet according to the logic of some of our far-left friends on this forum, eastern Europe ought to be several islamist bombings overdue by now, for how we dare to treat them poor oppressed muslim minorities (who actually do not give a single **** if the border is fenced off and immigration regulated strictly, and if anything would agree with it themselves).. 

[Col.Hornet]

Let's get back to the topic, ok?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/22/berlin-christmas-market-attack-polish-truck-driver-lukasz-urban-germany-order-merit

After examining the dead body of the truck driver it turns out, that he was still alive during the attack and actually struggled with the terrorist to stop the truck, in which he succeeded (though it cost him his life in the very end). If this is true, without his intervention, the casualties could have been much higher. Poor consolation, but still...

 As for a posthumous reward...petition is a nice idea but I would wait for completion of the investigation and leave the final decision to the German authorities.

What also matter is the fact that he was also shot (we shall see where did the attacker get the firearm but I'm 99% sure it was illegal). I don't want to be a bad prophet but it only give more fuel to the anti-gun campaign within the EU. Politicians like E. Bienkowska (gosh how I hate her... I want to punch the poor screen every time I see her face) seem to be very determined to restrict every kind of access to firearms for lawful citizens (with their last idiotic idea to register every purchased magazine and limit the magazine capacity for assault weapons down to 10 bullets. Like the terrorist were going to give a damn about it)

[Grizzly]

Some of the best integrated muslims ever.

Well integrated hmm?

[Mikes]

The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

[Mongoose]

Which is why there are no islamist attacks in eastern Europe, despite what some of you call "far right" being the mainstream policy here.

Maybe that's because no one gives a **** about eastern Europe and therefore has no reason to attack it?

[Det. Bullock]

I'm appalled by the rather vultural reaction by the dutch and british far right, surprised by the german's ability to keep calm and carry on and also just sad.

I think there are two factors here: first, the right wing media is actually making noise in Germany, it just took them some time. The other factor is the hate speech legalization in Germany. It's one of the easiest ways to get in legal trouble in Germany, so just to make sure, a lot of people will not express their actual feelings regarding this in the public. Media being "responsible" is another thing, but I think the hate speech legalization has far more to do with the calm in Germany than the media itself.

From what I have heard, there's also considerably less popular support for the acceptance of the refugees in Germany than the international and German media tries to portray.

You kind of overestimate the power of the german laws about hate speech.

Even my home country has a law against insulting our flag but the leader of the northern league party has got away with insulting it in public and on camera for decades (he literally said that he would wipe his arse with the flag at one point).

The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

After the last vestiges of ISIS in the middle east get annihilated it will be like former nazis after the war, people who went and murdered entire villages of old people and children living quietly under assumed names and hoping nobody will see through them.

[BlueFlames]

Which is why there are no islamist attacks in eastern Europe...

Just Eastern Europe, just attacks that were executed and claimed lives, just in the 2010's, just attacks that were (or are suspected to be) tied to extremist Islamic groups, and just what I could find in a really quick search of Wikipedia:

• Domodedovo airport bombing
• Shooting at the US embassy in Sarajevo
• Makhachkala checkpoint bombing
• Burgas bus bombing
• Zvornik police shooting
• Attack on Bosnian soldiers in Sarajevo
• Gun attack on the Derbent Citadel

Yup.  Eastern Europe is totally immune to terrorism.

Maybe that's because no one gives a **** about eastern Europe and therefore has no reason to attack it?

Seems less that nobody has a reason to attack eastern Europe and more that news agencies do not feel compelled to give more than minimal coverage to the attacks that do occur in eastern Europe.  This then provides the perception that the region isn't attacked.

[Mikes]

The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

After the last vestiges of ISIS in the middle east get annihilated it will be like former nazis after the war, people who went and murdered entire villages of old people and children living quietly under assumed names and hoping nobody will see through them.

And the international terror network will just disappear like the ones of the Nazis? ... oh wait ... the Nazis didn't have an international terror network. And afaik ... Nazis didn't have the motivation for suicide attacks all over the world either.

Sorry but ... wishful thinking alone won't make me sleep any better at night. Was hoping for something more solid.

What for example, considering ISIS religous nature, makes it unlikely from your viewpoint that stomping out ISIS in Syria and IRAK will be seen as a case of Martyrdom and fan the flames of international terror even more?

[666maslo666]

Just Eastern Europe, just attacks that were executed and claimed lives, just in the 2010's, just attacks that were (or are suspected to be) tied to extremist Islamic groups, and just what I could find in a really quick search of Wikipedia:

• Domodedovo airport bombing
• Shooting at the US embassy in Sarajevo
• Makhachkala checkpoint bombing
• Burgas bus bombing
• Zvornik police shooting
• Attack on Bosnian soldiers in Sarajevo
• Gun attack on the Derbent Citadel

Yup.  Eastern Europe is totally immune to terrorism.

It is immune only as long as it practices strict immigration policy. I mostly meant EU east, Visegrad group, really. North of the Orban Wall. Thats why I said "tens of thousands muslims currently living under a so-called "far right" regime", instead of "millions muslims" as live in the whole east. Sorry for the confusion.

Neither Bosnia nor Russia qualify. Bosnia is a majority muslim country lying on a illegal migration route and thus by my logic there should be lots of terrorism (if anything there is surprisingly little). As for Russia, I suggest you look at their religious demographic and also imperialist instead of isolationist policies when it comes to muslim territories in their sphere of influence. Putin may be "far right" in many ways but he is almost a leftist when it comes to immigration policy. In his quest for power, he wants a big "multicultural" empire instead of a Russian ethnostate. Cant have that without some terrorism. Again, if anything there is surprisingly little terrorism in Russia. There will be more in the future, IMHO.