Düsseldorf axe attack

[Derec]

Today a man attacked and injured 7 people with an axe at the Düsseldorf railway station.
Germany axe attack: Seven injured at Duesseldorf train station
This follows the MO that has been seen recently in Germany from Muslim migrant attackers. For example last year a Pakistani "asylum seeker" (who pretended to be a 17 year old Afghan) attacked and injured 4 people with a hatchet in Würzburg.

However, even though the D-dorf attacker is most likely Muslim, the authorities are deliberately vague about his identity. They did disclose his age, but as to where he is from, they only said he was from "former Yugoslavia". Why make a reference to a country that has not existed for a quarter century? That's like saying somebody is from "former Soviet Union". They even shared where in Germany he lived - Wuppertal, home of Germany's Sharia patrol. But for some reason they did not disclose his name (not even first name and last initial as is customary in Germany) nor where in particular he came from (e.g. Kosovo), lest people put two and two together that it was yet another Islamic attack thanks to Merkel's open borders policy toward Islamic mass migrants.

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Today a man attacked and injured 7 people with an axe at the Düsseldorf railway station.
Germany axe attack: Seven injured at Duesseldorf train station
This follows the MO that has been seen recently in Germany from Muslim migrant attackers. For example last year a Pakistani "asylum seeker" (who pretended to be a 17 year old Afghan) attacked and injured 4 people with a hatchet in Würzburg.

However, even though the D-dorf attacker is most likely Muslim, the authorities are deliberately vague about his identity. They did disclose his age, but as to where he is from, they only said he was from "former Yugoslavia". Why make a reference to a country that has not existed for a quarter century? That's like saying somebody is from "former Soviet Union". They even shared where in Germany he lived - Wuppertal, home of Germany's Sharia patrol. But for some reason they did not disclose his name (not even first name and last initial as is customary in Germany) nor where in particular he came from (e.g. Kosovo), lest people put two and two together that it was yet another Islamic attack thanks to Merkel's open borders policy toward Islamic mass migrants.

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

Isn't it obvious why they said it? The man came here from Yugoslavia. If they would guess which current state he would have been from if he moved here after the divide, they would be guessing. BBC doesn't like guessing. So they didn't. Instead they referenced the country, as it was called, at the time when he left it.

I have another theory as to why he did it. I think he was mentally ill. Isn't that more likely?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Today a man attacked and injured 7 people with an axe at the Düsseldorf railway station.
Germany axe attack: Seven injured at Duesseldorf train station
This follows the MO that has been seen recently in Germany from Muslim migrant attackers. For example last year a Pakistani "asylum seeker" (who pretended to be a 17 year old Afghan) attacked and injured 4 people with a hatchet in Würzburg.

However, even though the D-dorf attacker is most likely Muslim, the authorities are deliberately vague about his identity. They did disclose his age, but as to where he is from, they only said he was from "former Yugoslavia". Why make a reference to a country that has not existed for a quarter century? That's like saying somebody is from "former Soviet Union". They even shared where in Germany he lived - Wuppertal, home of Germany's Sharia patrol. But for some reason they did not disclose his name (not even first name and last initial as is customary in Germany) nor where in particular he came from (e.g. Kosovo), lest people put two and two together that it was yet another Islamic attack thanks to Merkel's open borders policy toward Islamic mass migrants.

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

Isn't it obvious why they said it? The man came here from Yugoslavia. If they would guess which current state he would have been from if he moved here after the divide, they would be guessing. BBC doesn't like guessing. So they didn't. Instead they referenced the country, as it was called, at the time when he left it.

I have another theory as to why he did it. I think he was mentally ill. Isn't that more likely?

The Jihadis who went around attacking people, are just as much lunatics of course. God may have spoken to him also and offered him a reward in paradise for eternity with a 72 year old virgin.

 

[DrZoidberg]

never mind

 

[laughing dog]

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

As Dr. Zoidberg said, because they were not sure and did not want to guess. Suppose they did guess and it led people to wrongly conclude he is a Muslim and that causes some more violence.

Why is it so important to you to jump to conclusions based on tin foil reasoning when more information is likely to be forthcoming shortly?

 

[Playball40]

Today a man attacked and injured 7 people with an axe at the Düsseldorf railway station.
Germany axe attack: Seven injured at Duesseldorf train station
This follows the MO that has been seen recently in Germany from Muslim migrant attackers. For example last year a Pakistani "asylum seeker" (who pretended to be a 17 year old Afghan) attacked and injured 4 people with a hatchet in Würzburg.

However, even though the D-dorf attacker is most likely Muslim, the authorities are deliberately vague about his identity. They did disclose his age, but as to where he is from, they only said he was from "former Yugoslavia". Why make a reference to a country that has not existed for a quarter century? That's like saying somebody is from "former Soviet Union". They even shared where in Germany he lived - Wuppertal, home of Germany's Sharia patrol. But for some reason they did not disclose his name (not even first name and last initial as is customary in Germany) nor where in particular he came from (e.g. Kosovo), lest people put two and two together that it was yet another Islamic attack thanks to Merkel's open borders policy toward Islamic mass migrants.

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

History of mental problems.......

 

[Keith&Co.]

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary

No...
The thing was, in that other thread, the only evidence you offered FOR your conclusion was that you couldn't possibly imagine there to be any other explanations.
It just seemed to me like either poor imagination or a willful predilection for your cherished conclusion.

I didn't begin to claim any other possibility was more, or less, plausible. Just that they existed.

And at least by judging the plausibility, you have tacitly admitted the possibility of alternate explanations, little though they work for your prejudices.

but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

Like that.
WERE they deliberately vague?
Or were they cautiously noncommittal?
Amazing how you can read THEIR minds from here, but you cannot really read my posts right here on the board.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What is incredible is that the only violence in Germany is caused by Muslim migrants. The nation was at perfect peace before the invasion.

 

[dismal]

Today a man attacked and injured 7 people with an axe at the Düsseldorf railway station.
Germany axe attack: Seven injured at Duesseldorf train station
This follows the MO that has been seen recently in Germany from Muslim migrant attackers. For example last year a Pakistani "asylum seeker" (who pretended to be a 17 year old Afghan) attacked and injured 4 people with a hatchet in Würzburg.

However, even though the D-dorf attacker is most likely Muslim, the authorities are deliberately vague about his identity. They did disclose his age, but as to where he is from, they only said he was from "former Yugoslavia". Why make a reference to a country that has not existed for a quarter century? That's like saying somebody is from "former Soviet Union". They even shared where in Germany he lived - Wuppertal, home of Germany's Sharia patrol. But for some reason they did not disclose his name (not even first name and last initial as is customary in Germany) nor where in particular he came from (e.g. Kosovo), lest people put two and two together that it was yet another Islamic attack thanks to Merkel's open borders policy toward Islamic mass migrants.

I know Keith&Co will come up with implausible scenarios to the contrary (perhaps the guy was merely late for his submarine), but why would the police be so deliberately vague unless it is to not have to disclose that he is a Muslim?

Isn't it obvious why they said it? The man came here from Yugoslavia. If they would guess which current state he would have been from if he moved here after the divide, they would be guessing. BBC doesn't like guessing. So they didn't. Instead they referenced the country, as it was called, at the time when he left it.

I have another theory as to why he did it. I think he was mentally ill. Isn't that more likely?

While it's possible they had no other information than that the guy was from "former Yugoslavia", the odds of that seem tiny don't they?

It's difficult to imagine how it would be possible to have this and only this information. All cities and towns in "former Yugoslavia" are in "current some-existing-country".

 

[Derec]

Isn't it obvious why they said it? The man came here from Yugoslavia.

They did not say when he came to Germany, so you are guessing too.
It turns out he came to Germany in 2009 and was an "asylum seeker". So your excuse as for them using "former Yugoslavia" does not hold water.
I think it is more likely they did it because of political correctness. They also did not reveal his name at first.

If they would guess which current state he would have been from if he moved here after the divide, they would be guessing.

I find it hard to believe they knew all those things about him, but not where he actually came from, or his name.

It turns out now that he is a Šiptar named Fatmir from Kosovo. So yes, this is yet another Islamic attack.

BBC doesn't like guessing. So they didn't. Instead they referenced the country, as it was called, at the time when he left it.

BBC was quoting police. BBC also did not say anything about when he left Kosovo.

I have another theory as to why he did it. I think he was mentally ill. Isn't that more likely?

Yes, mental illness indeed.

Seriously though, mental illness and Islamic terrorism are not mutually exclusive.

- - - Updated - - -

What is incredible is that the only violence in Germany is caused by Muslim migrants. The nation was at perfect peace before the invasion.

It was certainly a lot more peaceful. Axe attacks on trains were pretty much unheard of before "asylum seekers" from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan or Kosovo started spreading the religion of peace ...

 

[Derec]

I didn't begin to claim any other possibility was more, or less, plausible. Just that they existed.

Of course there are many possibilities. Without accounting for their plausibility and likelihood mere existence is irrelevant.

And at least by judging the plausibility, you have tacitly admitted the possibility of alternate explanations, little though they work for your prejudices.

Mere possibility of alternative explanations tells us nothing about their plausibility of likelihood. And I am basing my opinions on facts, not prejudices.

WERE they deliberately vague?

Yes. By stating his age it showed they knew his identity. But not until this morning has it been revealed that his name is "Fatmir". And what takes the cake is stating his national origin is a country that hasn't existed in its full form for quarter century.

Or were they cautiously noncommittal?

If it wasn't for long-standing MO of European officials to downplay any Islamic connection to attackers you'd have a point.

 

[LordKiran]

Of course there are many possibilities. Without accounting for their plausibility and likelihood mere existence is irrelevant. [1]

And at least by judging the plausibility, you have tacitly admitted the possibility of alternate explanations, little though they work for your prejudices.

Mere possibility of alternative explanations tells us nothing about their plausibility of likelihood. And I am basing my opinions on facts, not prejudices. [2]

WERE they deliberately vague?

Yes. By stating his age it showed they knew his identity. But not until this morning has it been revealed that his name is "Fatmir". And what takes the cake is stating his national origin is a country that hasn't existed in its full form for quarter century.

Or were they cautiously noncommittal?

If it wasn't for long-standing MO of European officials to downplay any Islamic connection to attackers you'd have a point.

1. You said that wrong

2. Justification for your lazy assumptions.

 

[dismal]

Why do people so reflexively defend this sort of thing?

It creates this weird air of desperation.

Why not just say something sane and reasonable like: "yeah, that's a bit weird, I can't imagine what they might possibly be looking at that would give them certitude he was from "the former yugoslavia" but have no idea which current day country he would be from. And it's not like the truth wasn't going to get out anyway."

 

[laughing dog]

Why do people so reflexively defend this sort of thing?

It creates this weird air of desperation.

Why not just say something sane and reasonable like: "yeah, that's a bit weird, I can't imagine what they might possibly be looking at that would give them certitude he was from "the former yugoslavia" but have no idea which current day country he would be from. And it's not like the truth wasn't going to get out anyway."

Exactly. So why do people reflexively feel the need to justify jumping to conclusions? It creates a weird air of bigotry. Why not simply wait for more information to come out? Hmmm.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously though, mental illness and Islamic terrorism are not mutually exclusive.

True. Seriously, mental illness and Islamic terrorism are not necessarily dependent. Why the need to jump to the conclusion that his religion is either a motivating factor or the reason for the attack?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do people so reflexively defend this sort of thing?

It creates this weird air of desperation.

Why not just say something sane and reasonable like: "yeah, that's a bit weird, I can't imagine what they might possibly be looking at that would give them certitude he was from "the former yugoslavia" but have no idea which current day country he would be from. And it's not like the truth wasn't going to get out anyway."

It may be more that a person's religion only seems to matter if a crime was committed and that person was a Muslim (or even worse, a Muslim immigrant).

 

[dismal]

Why do people so reflexively defend this sort of thing?

It creates this weird air of desperation.

Why not just say something sane and reasonable like: "yeah, that's a bit weird, I can't imagine what they might possibly be looking at that would give them certitude he was from "the former yugoslavia" but have no idea which current day country he would be from. And it's not like the truth wasn't going to get out anyway."

It may be more that a person's religion only seems to matter if a crime was committed and that person was a Muslim (or even worse, a Muslim immigrant).

And....this....causes....officials....to....say.....someone....is....from....country.....that....hasn't...existed....for....25....years....how?

Isn't where the guy is from "a fact"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why do people so reflexively defend this sort of thing?

Why do you insist that an attack on 'jumping to conclusions' is 'defending this sort of thing?'
Or is the difference too subtle for your brain?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course there are many possibilities.

That's not the song you were singing...

 

[dismal]

Why do you insist that an attack on 'jumping to conclusions' is 'defending this sort of thing?'
Or is the difference too subtle for your brain?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course there are many possibilities.

That's not the song you were singing...

I'll ask again. What would you be looking at that would give you a high degree of certainty that the guy was from "former yugoslavia" but have no idea what country that has existed for the last 25 years he was from.

Given it is now out exactly where he was from.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

It may be more that a person's religion only seems to matter if a crime was committed and that person was a Muslim (or even worse, a Muslim immigrant).

And....this....causes....officials....to....say.....someone....is....from....country.....that....hasn't...existed....for....25....years....how?

Isn't where the guy is from "a fact"?

In researching 1900 US Census lists many logging towns in Northern Minnesota had over 30% immigrants coming from "Austria". This country still exists. Why did the 1920 census list these people from different countries? Hmmm????