4 ms·

Hm ... yes, let's see, what possible goal might he have had? What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? I'm certa

Hm ... yes, let's see, what possible goal might he have had? What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? I'm certain noone ever attempted such a thing before. Equally certain they didn't claim allegiance to any particular, you know, religion or anything like that. No pattern to see here, move along.

jacquesm 10y ago
> What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? Yes, that's the question. > I'm certain noone ever attempted such a thing before. I'm aware of that. > Equally certain they didn't claim allegiance to any particular, you know, religion or anything like that. I'm aware of that too. Even so, none of that actually answers the question, it's just a bunch of handwaving and suggestion making it seem that you're a really smart person who has figured all this out. So, humor me, what did this guy want? How do you know that's what he wanted? I've been reading quite a bit about this particular incident and so far the only thing that is certain is that this was one very confused individual who had been under treatment for some time (years) and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam, no more than someone who still celebrates Christmas is a Christian. If you're aware of something rather stronger in the evidence department then please let's have it.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam That's similar to lots of the terrorists who've been caught. They tend to be converts to Islam, or previously not particularly observant before being radicalised.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Yes, they also all consumed mothers milk. Being radicalized is code for 'impressionable person ends up believing stories by some fraudster'. Let's cut to the chase here, this is why we won't be solving this any time soon: Religion pre-selects - in all its forms - the gullible, those, who would rather believe a story than the evidence before their eyes. Because of that and that alone we're stuck with this problem because our societies would have to outlaw all religion as some kind of disease if they're going to gather up the tools to do something about this problem on a scale where it will make a difference and within the framework of our legal systems, that is, without prejudice against one religion or another. But of course that will never fly, it would create a huge immediate problem, much larger than the one posed by terrorism. It would require all those that are involved in some other religion besides Islam to come to terms with their own religion and this will - given the influence of all those other religions, particularly Christianity in all its forms - never ever happen. And if it did it would make the current crop of terrorists look like rank amateurs. See also Richard Dawkins' 'crusade' against religion in all its forms, even atheists are not immune to telling others how they should live. If you're going to find one common element between Crusaders, IRA/Unionist bombers and Islamists (and a whole raft of others besides) it is a categorical in-ability to keep their religions where they should be: in their houses and their places of worship. As soon as people go out into the real world and start telling others how they should live it's game over. So, as far as I can see we're stuck with this problem for the foreseeable future, until enough blood has been shed that people will come to their senses again. It never was any different.
    - bybjorn 10y ago
      So, authorities shouldn't focus on preventing young/gullible people from being radicalised in the name of Islam, because they are just as likely to be radicalised in the name of [any other religion] and that poses an equal threat?

jacquesm 10y ago

> What conceivable purpose could indiscriminate mass murder in a major European city serve? Yes, that's the question. > I'm certain noone ever attempted such a thing before. I'm aware of that. > Equally certain they didn't claim allegiance to any particular, you know, religion or anything like that. I'm aware of that too. Even so, none of that actually answers the question, it's just a bunch of handwaving and suggestion making it seem that you're a really smart person who has figured all this out. So, humor me, what did this guy want? How do you know that's what he wanted? I've been reading quite a bit about this particular incident and so far the only thing that is certain is that this was one very confused individual who had been under treatment for some time (years) and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam, no more than someone who still celebrates Christmas is a Christian. If you're aware of something rather stronger in the evidence department then please let's have it.

DanBC 10y ago
> and who happened to be very loosely affiliated with Islam That's similar to lots of the terrorists who've been caught. They tend to be converts to Islam, or previously not particularly observant before being radicalised.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Yes, they also all consumed mothers milk. Being radicalized is code for 'impressionable person ends up believing stories by some fraudster'. Let's cut to the chase here, this is why we won't be solving this any time soon: Religion pre-selects - in all its forms - the gullible, those, who would rather believe a story than the evidence before their eyes. Because of that and that alone we're stuck with this problem because our societies would have to outlaw all religion as some kind of disease if they're going to gather up the tools to do something about this problem on a scale where it will make a difference and within the framework of our legal systems, that is, without prejudice against one religion or another. But of course that will never fly, it would create a huge immediate problem, much larger than the one posed by terrorism. It would require all those that are involved in some other religion besides Islam to come to terms with their own religion and this will - given the influence of all those other religions, particularly Christianity in all its forms - never ever happen. And if it did it would make the current crop of terrorists look like rank amateurs. See also Richard Dawkins' 'crusade' against religion in all its forms, even atheists are not immune to telling others how they should live. If you're going to find one common element between Crusaders, IRA/Unionist bombers and Islamists (and a whole raft of others besides) it is a categorical in-ability to keep their religions where they should be: in their houses and their places of worship. As soon as people go out into the real world and start telling others how they should live it's game over. So, as far as I can see we're stuck with this problem for the foreseeable future, until enough blood has been shed that people will come to their senses again. It never was any different.
  - bybjorn 10y ago
    So, authorities shouldn't focus on preventing young/gullible people from being radicalised in the name of Islam, because they are just as likely to be radicalised in the name of [any other religion] and that poses an equal threat?