Berlin terror attack

[Savannah]

Isn't the perpetrator still unknown? 

Arakan is right to take offense on this, you people are out of line. 

[Arakan]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What she said isn't that these people deserved to die.  They didn't.  She saying the actions of the West have created the anger that underlies this unjustifiable attack.  

It is not apology or justification to talk about why people are doing what they do.

Germany is Germany. I don't give a fuck about lazy generalizations about "the West". We didn't bomb Iraq, Libya or Syria. We took millions of desperate people in our country to help. 

I will not let Germany taken hostage of the deeds of your country or the country Dr Pepper is from. 

Those statements are spitting on the face of murdered people. Bye

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Germany is Germany. I don't give a fuck about lazy generalizations about "the West". We didn't bomb Iraq, Libya or Syria. We took millions of desperate people in our country to help. 

I will not let Germany taken hostage of the deeds of your country or the country Dr Pepper is from. 

Those statements are spitting on the face of murdered people. Bye

If anyone was asserting that the attack is in anyway justified you'd be right.  No one is making that assertion.  That terrorists lump Germany  and Germans (and Europeans generally) in with the US is a sign of their irrational anger.  Their belief in their justification doesn't make it justified.  It simply gives some insight into why this man did what he did.

As such the speculation offered in this discussion is not intended disrespectfully nor should it be taken to offer disrespect.

[Week]

9 minutes ago, Savannah said:

Isn't the perpetrator still unknown? 

Arakan is right to take offense on this, you people are out of line. 

The entire response by myself and then Dr. P was to elicited by Free Northman Reborn's post. Reposted below:

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This European notion of showing how terrorism will not impact their lives, by public displays of "normality" boggles the mind.

Basically, it just takes pressure off the government, who can then rely on public pressure on citizens to show how "resilient" they are by essentially pretending that terrorism does not touch them. In the end it just costs more lives as more terror attacks can be expected due to government inaction.

If instead people reacted with outrage, with mass protests to declare that this shit is not normal and is totally unacceptable in Europe, maybe the government will be forced to tighten up, lock their borders and generally grow a spine to deal with the issue forcefully and mercillessly. Until European citizens cross that Rubicon, their proud displays of polite bravery will just invite more of the same down the line.

Tolerance and good wishes ain't gonna make this problem go away folks. An iron fist is what's needed instead.

[Arakan]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If anyone was asserting that the attack is in anyway justified you'd be right.  No one is making that assertion.  That terrorista lump Germany  and Germans (and Europeans generally) in with the US is a sign of their irrational anger.  Their belief in their justification doesn't make it justified.  It simply gives some insight into why this man did what he did.

As such the speculation offered in this discussion is not intended disrespectfully nor should it be taken to offer disrespect.

Scot, read the original statement of Week again. And then read the statement of the user Pepper again. Sure as hell didn't read like an impartial explanation to me. Because it wasn't. Because nothing of what they said is in any way valid for Germany, not at all. And your English language comprehension skills are greater than mine. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

Condolences to those who have lost their lives, and the people of Germany.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Week said:

With respect to what happened in Turkey ... an iron fist will come back to haunt you just the same. Many of these incidents are clear responses to the violence and rhetoric of the West perpetrated against Muslims at home and abroad.

Week,

Arakan has asked and now I'm curious; could you clarify as to whether or not you are implying the attack in Germany is somehow justified by "the violence and rhetoric of the West"?

[Dr. Pepper]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What she said isn't that these people deserved to die.  They didn't.  She saying the actions of the West have created the anger that underlies this unjustifiable attack.  

It is not apology or justification to talk about why people are doing what they do.

Yes, this.  

3 minutes ago, Week said:

The entire response by myself and then Dr. P was to elicited by Free Northman Reborn's post. Reposted below:

 

Yes, exactly.  As a citizen of a country who is a major aggressor and who actively terrorizes entire regions, I recognize my complicity in all of this. I vote for hawkish candidates with the knowledge that their policies will lead to further acts of war and terrorism of other people.  I am not surprised when acts of terror are committed against 'my' people.  Sad and angry, yes.  Both sides are wrong, neither side is justified.  And yet I'm sympathetic to both the aggressors and aggressees in whichever particular attack that's being discussed. 

[Week]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Week,

Arakan has asked and now I'm curious; could you clarify as to whether or not you are implying the attack in Germany is somehow justified by "the violence and rhetoric of the West"?

Justified - absolutely not. No attack on civilians is justified - whether that be by militant groups or governments (looking at my own country here).

My point was in direct opposition to another post that I responded to and re-posted above.

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, this.  

Yes, exactly.  As a citizen of a country who is a major aggressor and who actively terrorizes entire regions, I recognize my complicity in all of this. I vote for hawkish candidates with the knowledge that their policies will lead to further acts of war and terrorism of other people.  I am not surprised when acts of terror are committed against 'my' people.  Sad and angry, yes.  Both sides are wrong, neither side is justified.  And yet I'm sympathetic to both the aggressors and aggressees in whichever particular attack that's being discussed. 

Ditto - yes, this. And to your previous post Scot that Dr. P is referring to.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Week,

Thank you.  And I do see what you are saying.

[Dr. Pepper]

The iron fist rhetoric is absurdly stupid.  We have an iron fist (We meaning the west in general), they have a hundred people willing to drive a lorry into a crowd.  In fact, that's kind of all the have right now.  Expect more of it, especially as that iron fist keeps smashing down.

[Savannah]

There's no such things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Savannah said:

There's no such things.

As?

[Savannah]

As iron fists or the wests in general. 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

14 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Scot, read the original statement of Week again. And then read the statement of the user Pepper again. Sure as hell didn't read like an impartial explanation to me. Because it wasn't. Because nothing of what they said is in any way valid for Germany, not at all. And your English language comprehension skills are greater than mine. 

Arakan,

Nobody is saying that that Germany's actions have warranted an attack, or that Germany should be held accountable for the actions of other Western countries. The point is that the people who do this kind of shit do not care. They see the entire West (of which Germany is a part) as the enemy and so an attack in Germany is the same as an attack on America,  it's just a much closer target.

[Chaircat Meow]

3 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

Arakan,

Nobody is saying that that Germany's actions have warranted an attack, or that Germany should be held accountable for the actions of other Western countries. The point is that the people who do this kind of shit do not care. They see the entire West (of which Germany is a part) as the enemy and so an attack in Germany is the same as an attack on America,  it's just a much closer target.

I don't know SENP, I think if that was the intention more care would have been taken to acknowledge the fact that Germany has barely been involved in Middle Eastern messes since WWII.

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, Savannah said:

As iron fists or the wests in general. 

Do you understand what is meant by these terms?

The west is obviously shorthand for a collection of countries and regions, namely the US and (usually Western) Europe.  Those included the "The West" shorthand can certainly change depending on context.

Iron fists also depends on context.  In this context, it would indicate things like economic advantage, ability to impose economic hardships, larger military with the better weaponry, greater ally treaties, etc.  These are the types of things that would be used to devastate and terrorize another group into submission.  The iron fist, so to speak.

[mormont]

39 minutes ago, Week said:

The thread didn't begin with parameters of what should or should not be discussed. Few are. If mods would like to direct the thread in a certain way, then I'll follow accordingly.

Well, for a start, we'd expect any thread on any topic to be conducted in a civil manner. That's easier if you aren't angry and if you aren't saying things that make other people angry.

So let's all calm down, take a moment to think before posting and bear in mind that this is a sensitive topic: remember that an attack just took place to which many users here feel a personal connection. Be respectful of that, please.

[Arakan]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Do you understand what is meant by these terms?

The west is obviously shorthand for a collection of countries and regions, namely the US and (usually Western) Europe.  Those included the "The West" shorthand can certainly change depending on context.

Iron fists also depends on context.  In this context, it would indicate things like economic advantage, ability to impose economic hardships, larger military with the better weaponry, greater ally treaties, etc.  These are the types of things that would be used to devastate and terrorize another group into submission.  The iron fist, so to speak.

There is no "the West" when it comes to foreign policies with the SOLE exception of Afghanistan post 911. 

Iraq War: USA, UK pro / Germany, France contra

Libya: UK, France pro / Germany contra / USA 50-50

Intervention in Syria (2012/13): UK, France pro / Germany contra / USA proxy 

governments only. 

There is no "the West" in foreign policies. This is a black-white simplification, used by jihadists and (from time to time) Putin. 

[Savannah]

US has an iron fist for sure. 

Western Europe has been demilitarizing itself for decades and large number of US Nato allies are not meeting even the bare minimum for the defense budget Nato would require. 
Also a good  portion  of the west is unaligned.