Gun and Grenade attack in Belgium

[MH]

I would go as far as claiming that is a muslim background style of taking revenge on society.
Some blond misfit probably would do it differently...shooting lawyers or something.

According to the limited info the guy looks like typical crackhead that happens to have muslim background which may have influenced his style of taking revenge.

[Penguin]

@ Sky:

I get your point. To me your statement looked like a relativization of the crime, like adding "oh and in Africa every day soandsomuch children starve." (*)
This board is no condolence book, nor intended to be so, but a forum to express one's opinions and thoughts. If this includes empathy, so be it.
If members of this board were affected personally is secondary to the fact that a crime like this happens random, could happen to anybody out in the public, visiting a city and standing at a bus stop. So yes, this is my connection to express my lame RIP. I don't need a personal connection to do this. I noticed the same thing in the thread about the NSU (Nazi terror cell), but I wasn't on to reply to you there, and I didn't want to revive a dead thread later when I read it. Fyi: I was 300 meters away when the cell's nailbomb exploded in Cologne, next to a Döner shop and a restaurant which I used to frequent on a regular base, personal enough? It does not change my feelings towards these boneheads or my empathy with the victims if I were hit directly or were not affected at all. However, as said before: I get your point.

To make another Breivik-connection: this is one of the boards where one can talk about the attack in Liege. When the attack in Norway happened, the forums on all mayor German news sites were open for comments, yesterday: the comments on every forum were deactivated. Strange or "vorauseilender Gehorsam"? To me it seems like a laughable attempt to "fight racism" by not allowing questions about the criminal's background. That's why I prefer the open discussions this board allows us to have.

If the guy was a non-political/non-religious lunatic madman, or a jihadist is an interesting question certainly many people have. Not allowing to talk about it only fuels resentments and speculations.


(*) my feelings towards this phrase are expressed by this song, from one of the important bands of my youth: , lyrics are here - hope you get where I'm coming from and my pov about crocodile tears (to the damned foreigners: song's in German only)

[tater]

As soon as I saw no real information about his motives, I assumed he was muslim. Skybird is entirely correct about double standards.

Perhaps because no one worries about hurting the feelings of neo-nazis, but they do worry about hurting the feelings of another group that voluntarily holds a set of ideas.

[Jimbuna]

What would have been the maximum sentence?

Isn't is strange that when Breivik was caught, the media immediately started to focus on his then still assumed racist background, his christian-fundamentalist background, his xenophobia and "Islamophobia", his supremacist white-race-belief

Someone clearly has their head so far from reality they can no longer see.
With Breivic the media went on to his racist loony rants only after they had jumped into an initial "its the muslims" angle and it had emerged that it wasn't.

[tater]

With terror attacks in the west---by lone nuts, or organized groups---and zero information, you are more likely than not correct to guess "muslim." Even counting the OK city bombing's large number of victims, the total mass-murder count in the last 10-20 years to lone nuts and non-muslim groups in the west is noise compared to islamic attacks.

You can crank up the non-muslim numbers by heading to the east, and the LTTE will raise the death count a lot, but then you need to include muslim attacks out of the west, too, which will dwarf even the large toll in Sri Lanka.

Regardless, it's better to "wait and see" before reporting, I'm just saying that if forced to guess, a bookmaker would pick muslim.

As soon as I saw no real information about his motives, I assumed he was muslim. Skybird is entirely correct about double standards.

First one I read once he had been identified had him down as a north african immigrant, that was later changed to son of immigrants and to Belgian born of Morroccan descent.
As for reported information on motives it started out as an attempted escape then was reported as wanted criminal then it was ex-con who was supposed to report over parole violations.
So your "no real information" is bollox as there wasplenty of information but most of it was not correct(as is to be expected on breaking news).
If you really see no information then perhaps you should use some half decent news sources.

[tater]

I heard a few-second long blurb on National Public Radio. When they said grenades, and didn't mention anything about him, I assumed he was a muslim.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Skybird

One thing seems to become more and more obvious: he planned it, it is no mental "circuit shortcut", he prepared it, he wanted to kill as many people as possible. And like it was no coindicidence that Breiivik targetted the government and then the socialist youth organsiation, it maybe also is no coincidence that Amrani targetted a symbolic and iconic hotspot of Christian festivities.

The comparison to Breivik recommends itself. Maybe it even was a direct retaliation.

I've been thinking exactly the same. I think that this dead woman that they found, had perhaps revealed his true agenda.

It's like "ohh it's so sorry for this poor guy, it's our foul, that he had to do such a terrible thing" If you red and listen to the danish and swedish news and newspaper

Markus

[tater]

I'm talking initial reporting. As it happens sort of stuff.

heard a few-second long blurb on National Public Radio. When they said grenades, and didn't mention anything about him, I assumed he was a muslim.

So if you hear about a shoting and grenade attack in Dublin or Limerick you assume its the muslims not the local criminals then?????
BTW your maths on attacks in the west seem to miss out the past couple of decades of mass slaughter and bombings by terrorists in that continent to your south.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Fyi: I was 300 meters away when the cell's nailbomb exploded in Cologne, next to a Döner shop and a restaurant which I used to frequent on a regular base, personal enough?

I know how you feel with such memories.

1986, West Berlin, La Belle.

Those are mine. 3 months after my Abitur, I just had become 19 some weeks earlier. Was coming back from a night party, on bike, with a friend. We just had crossed the street and turned into a sidestreet (down which my family lived) and just had passed the club, when it went up, maybe 50, 60 m behind us. Either blast or shock took us from our bikes. I cannot say until today what it was, since I have terribly precise visual memories of what then unfolded on the scene, but no physical ones and no accustic ones. It all is a movie without sound or music playing. No sirens, no voices, no nothing. Tells me - as a former psychologist - something about how deep it is engraved in my psyche. Minor scratches only, some "blaue Flecke" - that was all, for myself. Some of the people crawling out of the ruin were not that lucky.

Never forgotten, never forgiven.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So if you hear about a shoting and grenade attack in Dublin or Limerick you assume its the muslims not the local criminals then?????
BTW your maths on attacks in the west seem to miss out the past couple of decades of mass slaughter and bombings by terrorists in that continent to your south.

With grenades these days? My assumption would be muslims until proved otherwise. Again, I still take a wait and see attitude, but if it's NOT muslims, I'm surprised.

I don't think of even Mexico as being "the West," much less anyplace south of that. I suppose regionally, if I hear about such an attack I assume (rightfully) that it is Mexican nationals. I'm so used to their criminality I forget them.

I mean "first world" countries.

With grenades these days? My assumption would be muslims until proved otherwise. Again, I still take a wait and see attitude, but if it's NOT muslims, I'm surprised.

Well that just shows how wrong assumptions can be and how your guessing without information isn't a clever thing to do.
like wise with your Tigers thing, you miss out not only the continent right next to you but then skip straight across another one to find a single example as "balance" to try and make your views look like they fit.
You are skipping from pillar to post to try and get snippetsof information which could at a stretch roughly fit your view instead of looking at the information then fitting your views around that.

I mean "first world" countries

1st 2nd 3rd...makes no difference if the reality doesn't fit the view you want and it is clear that none actually do.
I mean seriously how can you be still coming out with this, it was widely rubbished very thoroughly when Coulter spouted it ages ago.

[Foxtrot]

According to Amrani's lawyer, he could not speak Arabic and was not Muslim.

Guess the question has been answered