Germany train axe attack: Afghan teenage refugee shouting 'Allahu Akbar' goes on bloody rampage hacking

An axe-man who stormed a passenger train and hacked at terrified passengers while shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been identified as a 17-year-old Afghan who entered Germany as a lone refugee.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-train-axe-attack-afghan-8445784

Nothing to do with islam...

I'm sure to him, it was all about Islam, but I prefer to let the non-violent majority define their religion, not the psychopaths.

You tried that argument already on the Nice thread...


And it didn't go to well then...

Tommy Monk wrote:You tried that argument already on the Nice thread...


And it didn't go to well then...

It's my opinion, I have the right to it and I have the right to express it.

well imo...since bens attitude of "shit happens" seems to be the prevalent one. No allocation of blame, denying the obvious and fk all idea what to do about the situation AND (and this is the biggest problem I have) no regard (beyond words) for the victims....Sorry BEN...but "oh I'm sorry mr widdow of the victim/mrs scarred for life victim, but we must be tolerant" DOESNT cut it"

I suggest that since the "authorities" are clearly incapable of keeping us safe from this sort of thing, we, the citizens, should have concealed/open carry rights (provided you meet the necessary conditions) AND the right to use the weapon when necessary.....

That's what happens in America. They're called guns and that's not working too good.

so what do you suggest...perhaps we'd all be better off comitting suicide?

I require either

the authorities GUARANTEE without exception , my safety (as is the duty of govt...)
OR
they allow me the means to defend myself against such an attack......
AT THE LEAST....I should be permitted to carry/use a taser and or pepper/mace spray.....

EVERY time an incident such as this occurs...the GOVT is shown to be an utter failure.....

Made and tasers will be abused eventually, criminals will use them to rob and rape.

well...in that case....


send em all home....

or...every time an innocent victim is killed....execute an mp......

well??? It might make em wake their ideas up a bit

all they ever do is tut tut , and say how terrible it is.....all the while not actually giving a flying f**k for ANYTHING but their "queens peace" and so called "social cohesion"

which is nothing of the sort....

and of course their own asses....

Lord Foul wrote:well imo...since bens attitude of "shit happens" seems to be the prevalent one. No allocation of blame, denying the obvious and fk all idea what to do about the situation  AND (and this is the biggest problem I have) no regard (beyond words) for the victims....Sorry BEN...but "oh I'm sorry mr widdow of the victim/mrs scarred for life victim, but we must be tolerant" DOESNT cut it"

I suggest that since the "authorities" are clearly incapable of keeping us safe from this sort of thing, we, the citizens, should have concealed/open carry rights (provided you meet the necessary conditions) AND the right to use the weapon when necessary.....

Since when have I said we must tolerate murder?

Lord Foul wrote:or...every time an innocent victim is killed....execute an mp......

You mean every time someone's killed by a foreigner. You don't care about domestic murders -- it's okay for Germans to murder one another.

yup...just as its ok for the various factions of islam to murder one another

more basically....the murder of one german (or brit, or frog) by another...is not driven by the agenda that drives these "radical islamic" killings.....

Lord Foul wrote:yup...just as its ok for the various factions of islam to murder one another

more basically....the murder of one german (or brit, or frog) by another...is not driven by the agenda that drives these "radical islamic" killings.....

Not necessarily -- a native Kraut, Brit, Frog, Yank, etc. can also be a Muslim.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You tried that argument already on the Nice thread...


And it didn't go to well then...

It's my opinion, I have the right to it and I have the right to express it.

Here's how the debate went after you used that argument on other thread...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Was that after hundreds of years of Muslim aggression and in response to it... or before...?


And for you to deny 1400 years of Muslim aggression is just being plain disingenuous...

I'm not saying that Muslims haven't been violent, I'm saying European countries' colonial expansion was equally violent and far more widespread. And also justified with religion.

Funny how we see you so desperately flip flop around with your arguments here...


You have gone from trying to claim that it is only up to some Muslims to decide what 'proper' islam is about...


The violent Muslims are not proper koran/islam following Muslims etc...


Its not for the koran to say what's what...


Even though the koran is the same throughout, deemed to be perfect in every way and the clear and concise rule book for all Muslims to follow etc...


You then say that the koran is ambiguous and that it is interpreted/misinterpreted differently by everyone who reads it...


And you say it is just like every other book ever written...


And then you say the koran is no more real than any other book...


You then start to deflect from historical evidence of  Muslim aggression by trying to claim that the well overdue response against it was in some way justification for the centuries of earlier Muslim aggression that provoked this said response...


Then you switch to a half hearted admission of the existence of some historical Muslim aggression, and an admission that Muslims were actually violent in the past... but you then try to downplay the extent/enormity of the first 1000 years of history of Muslim aggression against others, by your trying to compare it with being just the same as the last 300 years in history when some people from some European countries started to travel about and explore/settle/colonise some other parts of the world.



And you seem to then actually admit that historically Muslims were very violent and this behaviour was justified by their religion!!!

(As shown in the bit I highlighted in your quoted post above!)


And as told to them in their guide book...


Which is what I was saying in the first place!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yup...just as its ok for the various factions of islam to murder one another

more basically....the murder of one german (or brit, or frog) by another...is not driven by the agenda that drives these "radical islamic" killings.....

Not necessarily -- a native Kraut, Brit, Frog, Yank, etc. can also be a Muslim.

and here is where it gets kinda "complicated"

if he kills a fellow (whatever) as a fellow (whatever) for reasons OTHER than religious ideology then its life(though hard on them as it is I STILL expect the authorities to PREVENT crime....rather than merely "detecting it") and nothing is going to change that....

If its for religious ideology then that ideology is "foreign" to the majority, and thus subject to sanction in and of itself......

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yup...just as its ok for the various factions of islam to murder one another

more basically....the murder of one german (or brit, or frog) by another...is not driven by the agenda that drives these "radical islamic" killings.....

Not necessarily -- a native Kraut, Brit, Frog, Yank, etc. can also be a Muslim.

and here is where it gets kinda "complicated"

if he kills a fellow (whatever) as a fellow (whatever) for reasons OTHER than religious ideology then its life(though hard on them as it is I STILL expect the authorities to PREVENT crime....rather than merely "detecting it") and nothing is going to change that....

If its for religious ideology then that ideology is "foreign" to the majority, and thus subject to sanction in and of itself......

And that's where it gets really complicated, because what if my neighbor hears I'm an atheist and kills me because he thinks I'm a threat to Christianity? Should his ideology itself be subject to sanction?

on a one off basis? not really, since as things show, you cant legislate for the odd individual nut job...
if it became as prevalent as the islamic nut jobs then I would think you have a good case....

(personally i'd ban all the abrahamic and other "book based dogma driven" faiths and condemn any follwers to the slave pits for eternity.....but thats just me....)

Lord Foul wrote:on a one off basis? not really, since as things show, you cant legislate for the odd individual nut job...
if it became as prevalent as the islamic nut jobs then I would think you have a good case....

(personally i'd ban all the abrahamic and other "book based dogma driven" faiths and condemn any follwers to the slave pits for eternity.....but thats just me....)

Ban the Druids!

Lord Foul wrote:on a one off basis? not really, since as things show, you cant legislate for the odd individual nut job...
if it became as prevalent as the islamic nut jobs then I would think you have a good case....

(personally i'd ban all the abrahamic and other "book based dogma driven" faiths and condemn any follwers to the slave pits for eternity.....but thats just me....)

But it seems that a lot of the "ship them back" mentality really is on the basis of the actions of odd nut jobs, no? If you compare the number of Muslim terrorism perpetrators to the number of Muslims, they are odd individual nut jobs.

yeah...but raggs....


we dont go around murdering abortion clinic staff and blowing up the clinics

we dont go around killing gays like those "christians" in africa

we dont refuse to gay couples rooms in our hotels/retreats..becasue of religious beleifs


in short ALL the book based and dogma driven faiths are at base ....evil

I mean even the christian faith I suspect is bowing to the wrong character,,,

lets see

satan...(admittedly an abrahamic construct) ......does he ACTUALLY torture souls...I mean...we ONLY have the word of christians for that...

as I see it

satan says ...hey guys...have a ball....go on...get pissed, stoned, hell...even shag around.....

I DONT recall.....anywhere, satan appearing out of the blue and saying hey bro...do me a favour...go kill your CHILD for me (um....who did that I wonder)

I dont recall satan frying some poor bloke for "not obeying orders" under the most unjust circumstances, AND for being morally correct (read the story of onan) i wonder...who did such an unjust thing?

and as for that episode in the garden....well......what did satan do....he gave us freedom from enslavement ..............the tree of knowlege of good and ill

I think you abrahamists aught to really consider just who/what you are siding with.....


If you want the full half hour (monty python).....I am willing to show you the intellectual and moral superiority of wicca in general and druids in particular........

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:on a one off basis? not really, since as things show, you cant legislate for the odd individual nut job...
if it became as prevalent as the islamic nut jobs then I would think you have a good case....

(personally i'd ban all the abrahamic and other "book based dogma driven" faiths and condemn any follwers to the slave pits for eternity.....but thats just me....)

But it seems that a lot of the "ship them back" mentality really is on the basis of the actions of odd nut jobs, no? If you compare the number of Muslim terrorism perpetrators to the number of Muslims, they are odd individual nut jobs.

but NOT if you compare them to the number in say france
or germany
or britain...


AND taking the case of the stabbings of those poor kids and their mother ....whilst it would be an outrage if that was done for gain (robbery) it is ten times the outrage that it was done for the purpose of trying to enforce a foreign and unwanted, in fact widely despised, religious dogma upon those of a nation within which this creature is a guest....

Isn't it strange how this thread has magically turned into one about Christians?

well...untill you magically turned it thus it was mainly about Muslims in particular and "book based dogma driven" religions in general

christianity isnt so snowy white as to escape its share of the thrown pie......

Lord Foul wrote:well...untill you magically turned it thus it was mainly about Muslims in particular and "book based dogma driven" religions in general

christianity isnt so snowy white as to escape its share of the thrown pie......

I didn't turn it into a thread about Christianity at all. This is supposed to be a thread about a mad Muslim.

Ignore it Raggs... it's just part of the usual expected deflection tactic...

actually since i proposed banning islam as a possible solution, and given bens quite plausible response

Its all relevant.....

ban the lot of these "book based dogma driven" religions.....there is nothing to either recommend them OR seperate one from another....they fight and kill each other (and everyone else) to spread the word of peace
they (each) claim to hold the absolute truth and knowlege

and when they are not killing unbeleivers/gays/anyone else they can demonise......they kill themselves with internal divisions and schisms

ffs......six of one and half a dozen of the other

Tommy Monk wrote:Ignore it Raggs... it's just part of the usual expected deflection tactic...

That's right Tommy. That lot are Christianophobic in the extreme.

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:on a one off basis? not really, since as things show, you cant legislate for the odd individual nut job...
if it became as prevalent as the islamic nut jobs then I would think you have a good case....

(personally i'd ban all the abrahamic and other "book based dogma driven" faiths and condemn any follwers to the slave pits for eternity.....but thats just me....)

But it seems that a lot of the "ship them back" mentality really is on the basis of the actions of odd nut jobs, no? If you compare the number of Muslim terrorism perpetrators to the number of Muslims, they are odd individual nut jobs.

but NOT if you compare them to the number in say france
or germany
or britain...

Sure they are! What percentage of Britain's one-million-plus Muslims has committed a violent act motivated by religion?

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it strange how this thread has magically turned into one about Christians?

Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable. They all have some good ideas and some horrid ones, they're all man-made, and they all have a small minority within them who are willing to kill over them.

For that matter, they all also have a minority within them who are inspired to be better people than they otherwise would be by their faith.

Well said.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't it strange how this thread has magically turned into one about Christians?

Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable. They all have some good ideas and some horrid ones, they're all man-made, and they all have a small minority within them who are willing to kill over them.

For that matter, they all also have a minority within them who are inspired to be better people than they otherwise would be by their faith.

That didn't answer my point at all.

He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

Not trying to put her down or anything, but I do get the impression that Raggs defends Christianity and the UK with same ferocity as if they were her children.

becasue your question is irrelevant....since the premise that the thread has been turned into one about christians is false,,,

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

It didn't explain why he was talking about Christians in a thread about a Muslim. He wouldn't talk about Muslims in a derogatory manner in a thread about Christians.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

Not trying to put her down or anything, but I do get the impression that Raggs defends Christianity and the UK with same ferocity as if they were her children.

I get the impression that you attack Christianity because you lost your own faith and you can't bear anyone else to keep their own faith.

Rags, I think living in the US where there are these big groups of Christians that demonstrate over everything "evil" - gays, abortion, single parents, the colour red, - the Americans see a lot of radicals, all of the time.
We don't have that over here. I think that's why you will get the American posters of this forum talking about Christians so much, perhaps?

eddie wrote:Rags, I think living in the US where there are these big groups of Christians that demonstrate over everything "evil" - gays, abortion, single parents, the colour red, - the Americans see a lot of radicals, all of the time.
We don't have that over here. I think that's why you will get the American posters of this forum talking about Christians so much, perhaps?

Exactly, my experience with religious fundamentalism is Christian. They want the rest of us to live by their book.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

Not trying to put her down or anything, but I do get the impression that Raggs defends Christianity and the UK with same ferocity as if they were her children.

I get the impression that you attack Christianity because you lost your own faith and you can't bear anyone else to keep their own faith.

I don't care what you believe, I care when you try to impose it on me regardless of what I believe.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags, I think living in the US where there are these big groups of Christians that demonstrate over everything "evil" - gays, abortion, single parents, the colour red, - the Americans see a lot of radicals, all of the time.
We don't have that over here. I think that's why you will get the American posters of this forum talking about Christians so much, perhaps?

Exactly, my experience with religious fundamentalism is Christian. They want the rest of us to live by their book.

I can see that by the references you, Quill and 4evwr make. It's not big business over here, we don't have that radical Christianity that you seem to.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

It didn't explain why he was talking about Christians in a thread about a Muslim. He wouldn't talk about Muslims in a derogatory manner in a thread about Christians.

cause same they're the Same!!!!

Yes, You Abrahamist like to seperate into your little cults but to someone outside of Abrahmaism you are all the same. Jew, Christian, Muslim all identical you all have a dumb factually incorrect book that preaches intolerance and hatred and the same bullshit fairytale abotu a magic sky giant that controls everything.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I get the impression that you attack Christianity because you lost your own faith and you can't bear anyone else to keep their own faith.

I don't care what you believe, I care when you try to impose it on me regardless of what I believe.

I'm not trying to impose anything on you - you're trying to impose your hatred of Christians/Christianity on me by hijacking every thread on here which is about Muslims, and changing the topic.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It didn't explain why he was talking about Christians in a thread about a Muslim. He wouldn't talk about Muslims in a derogatory manner in a thread about Christians.

cause same they're the Same!!!!

Yes, You Abrahamist like to seperate into your little cults but to someone outside of Abrahmaism you are all the same. Jew, Christian, Muslim all identical you all have a dumb factually incorrect book that preaches intolerance and hatred and the same bullshit fairytale abotu a magic sky giant that controls everything.

Is that like saying that "foreigners are all the same"? Your leftie halo is slipping big time these days.

It's only militant and aggressive atheists like you who bleat on about magic sky giants - Christians don't see it that way. If you want to sound at all intelligent, at least get with the programme.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:He did:


"Please understand, to me the religions are pretty much interchangeable"

Not trying to put her down or anything, but I do get the impression that Raggs defends Christianity and the UK with same ferocity as if they were her children.

RAGGS often seems to jump to the the defence of Christianity (or the UK..) even when no-one is directly attacking them...


WHAT I'M wondering here, is who gave eddie a "red" up there, simply for agreeing with one of Ben's statements..

Possibly the same person who gives me a red mark whenever I point out racist comments being made by the same little few posters over and over on here ?