Europe submits voluntarily

[repoman]

 

[Bomb#20]

And that assessment is possible without even clicking the link.

You seriously need to learn who not to trust.

In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center listed Horowitz and Spencer as "anti-Muslim extremists". Spencer called the article a "hit list".

The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

 

[whichphilosophy]

And that assessment is possible without even clicking the link.

You seriously need to learn who not to trust.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

My point on Horowitz is he's very shrewd even if narrow-minded. He would generalise but uses carefully checked information to verify this.

 

[angelo]

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

My point on Horowitz is he's very shrewd even if narrow-minded. He would generalise but uses carefully checked information to verify this.

It's almost impossible to make one see what he/she doesn't even want to acknowledge are simple facts.

 

[repoman]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Exactly. Credibility zero.

 

[bilby]

And that assessment is possible without even clicking the link.

You seriously need to learn who not to trust.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FrontPage_Magazine

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Meh. I don't know much about the SPLC; I quoted Wikipedia, which is a 'quick and dirty' source for determining what other sources are both safe and worthy of clicks.

My quote from Wiki consists of two lines - one quotes both SPLC and Horowitz's pal Spencer; The other (from a wiki editor whose identity I can't be bothered to pursue) simply says 'The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam"' FrontPage Magazine doesn't appear to be worthy of a click; particularly in the light of angelo's previous choices of 'sources', such as JihadWatch.

In the 'good old days', governments simply told the press what they could or couldn't publish, and all you got was the government approved point of view. Then the idea of the 'free press' came about, and we got the views of anyone who had the resources and intelligence to establish, produce, print and market a newspaper. This was a significant improvement; a single biased source was replaced by a diverse range of sources, most of which couldn't be too biased for fear of losing readers and going broke.

But now we have the Internet - no matter how marginal, counter-factual, or unpopular your ideas are, you can publish them to the world at almost no cost. And the revenue stream from this is not from sales, but from an advertising model that rewards clicks.

By simply going to look at a website, one is funding its publisher. So as a citizen, you have the duty to be wary about what sites you visit - quite aside from the fact that there are so many news (and 'news') sites that some kind of filter is required.

The Internet encourages extremists (on all sides), and this is not a good thing. Reading two opposing but equally counter-factual and extreme points of view is not equivalent to reading a selection of mostly factual moderate articles; Such reading actually makes people less well informed than they were before they started. The only thing worse is to limit your reading to only one extreme point of view - as it would appear angelo does on this topic.

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

[angelo]

The opposing point of view are the mainstream media which mainly lean left.

Also, the term Islamophobia was invented by apologists of the religion of peace to attack it's critics.

 

[Bomb#20]

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Meh. I don't know much about the SPLC; I quoted Wikipedia, which is a 'quick and dirty' source for determining what other sources are both safe and worthy of clicks.

My quote from Wiki consists of two lines - one quotes both SPLC and Horowitz's pal Spencer; The other (from a wiki editor whose identity I can't be bothered to pursue) simply says 'The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam"' FrontPage Magazine doesn't appear to be worthy of a click; particularly in the light of angelo's previous choices of 'sources', such as JihadWatch.

But Wikipedia doesn't do its own research. It's a quick and dirty source for determining what other sources are saying about other sources; and even Donald Trump can tell you what he's heard other people saying. Seeing as how lots of leftists describe people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam" too, if finding out that leftists have called somebody those things is all it takes to convince you he isn't worth a click, then you're allowing one extreme point of view to put a limit on your reading. Now, given that Wikipedia is trustworthy, if Wikipedia had told you that a selection of mostly factual moderate articles had called Horowitz "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam", that would make a better case for not clicking; but Wikipedia isn't really in the business of passing judgment on which of its sources are moderate. They'll just tell you who said it, and leave it up to you to have learned whether that's someone not to trust.

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are not entitled to their own facts.

Quite so. So can you tell whether somebody is trying to have his own facts by checking whether a leftist called him an "anti-Muslim extremist"?

 

[bilby]

The opposing point of view are the mainstream media which mainly lean left.

Also, the term Islamophobia was invented by apologists of the religion of peace to attack it's critics.

Reality has a left-wing bias; which is just another way of saying that the current political environment is too far right to reflect reality - implying that political centrists are to the right of the fact based position, and that rightists are even further removed from reality.

Etymology is an interesting field of study; but it's of no value in determining the validity or otherwise of current word usage and meaning.

 

[bilby]

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Meh. I don't know much about the SPLC; I quoted Wikipedia, which is a 'quick and dirty' source for determining what other sources are both safe and worthy of clicks.

My quote from Wiki consists of two lines - one quotes both SPLC and Horowitz's pal Spencer; The other (from a wiki editor whose identity I can't be bothered to pursue) simply says 'The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam"' FrontPage Magazine doesn't appear to be worthy of a click; particularly in the light of angelo's previous choices of 'sources', such as JihadWatch.

But Wikipedia doesn't do its own research. It's a quick and dirty source for determining what other sources are saying about other sources; and even Donald Trump can tell you what he's heard other people saying. Seeing as how lots of leftists describe people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam" too, if finding out that leftists have called somebody those things is all it takes to convince you he isn't worth a click, then you're allowing one extreme point of view to put a limit on your reading. Now, given that Wikipedia is trustworthy, if Wikipedia had told you that a selection of mostly factual moderate articles had called Horowitz "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam", that would make a better case for not clicking; but Wikipedia isn't really in the business of passing judgment on which of its sources are moderate. They'll just tell you who said it, and leave it up to you to have learned whether that's someone not to trust.

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are not entitled to their own facts.

Quite so. So can you tell whether somebody is trying to have his own facts by checking whether a leftist called him an "anti-Muslim extremist"?

No, I can't; Which might be why I said:

In the 'good old days', governments simply told the press what they could or couldn't publish, and all you got was the government approved point of view. Then the idea of the 'free press' came about, and we got the views of anyone who had the resources and intelligence to establish, produce, print and market a newspaper. This was a significant improvement; a single biased source was replaced by a diverse range of sources, most of which couldn't be too biased for fear of losing readers and going broke.

But now we have the Internet - no matter how marginal, counter-factual, or unpopular your ideas are, you can publish them to the world at almost no cost. And the revenue stream from this is not from sales, but from an advertising model that rewards clicks.

By simply going to look at a website, one is funding its publisher. So as a citizen, you have the duty to be wary about what sites you visit - quite aside from the fact that there are so many news (and 'news') sites that some kind of filter is required.

The Internet encourages extremists (on all sides), and this is not a good thing. Reading two opposing but equally counter-factual and extreme points of view is not equivalent to reading a selection of mostly factual moderate articles; Such reading actually makes people less well informed than they were before they started. The only thing worse is to limit your reading to only one extreme point of view - as it would appear angelo does on this topic.

The sum of all the things that make me disinclined to click that link is far too large to explicitly provide here. Hence my resorting to a quick and dirty heuristic. I am not surprised that that doesn't satisfy everybody - that's pretty solidly implied by 'quick and dirty'; I make no pretense of rigor, and it seems rather odd that you feel the need to criticize it's lack.

Unless you (or angelo, or anyone) presents a good reason why I should donate my click to angelo's choice of website, I shall continue not to do so. Because (and forgive my lack of rigor in this further explanation) it looks as dodgy as fuck.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Both groups have done zero beheadings in Sweden. But Swedish Nazis have executed people. This is in rececent years. Swedish Islamists have yet to execute anybody.

Deliberately driving a truck through crowded street and killing 5 people in the process doesn't qualify as an execution in your book?

Executions aren't indiscriminate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is that so! This is bullshit?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265873/refugee-rape-gangs-sweden-dawn-perlmutter

Its a fake news site.

Of course it is, it must be, it's not from leftard sources!

Let's start from the begining.

Sweden is the rape capital of the Western world.

It's not. This is just a misrepresentation of rape statistics.

http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

The authors of this article didn't even check Snopes!?!

The very first line was fake news.

The general public is unaware of the epidemic of Swedish rapes because there has been an orchestrated effort by mainstream media and the Swedish government to deliberately mischaracterize offenders and downplay the number of incidents.

A lot of the Swedish media are also spinning this fake news idea. So I'm not sure what they're talking about? I think this is just conspiracy theory craziness.

Sweden is super transparent with all it's crime statistics. Anybody can search the databases. Everybody in Sweden has a personal id number. All immigrants have personal id numbers that end in a "5". This is extremely easy to check. Middle-Easterners usually have Middle-Eastern names. any moron in Sweden can check this for themselves.

Here's the most popular database.

https://www.lexbase.se/

It's pretty clear that whoever wrote that article never asked a Swede who knows anything. I think they've just made shit up.

Poor people will always be slightly over-represented in violent crime statistics than rich people. Immigrants will be more poor than non-immigrants. So immigrants will be over-represented in crime statistics. But that's immigrants from any background. There's zero evidence that poor Muslim immigrants are any more prone to violence or rape than any other poor immigrant.

The significant increase in rapes are the direct result of Sweden's open door refugee policy and denial of Muslim culture.

This whole sentence is just craziness. Sweden has not an open door policy. We're accepted the most per capita. But no European country has been especially welcoming to Muslim immigrants. Sweden is one of the hardest countries to get to from Syria. The result is that Sweden has gotten the richest and most well educated Syrian refugees. I have a hard time seeing how Sweden couldn't benefit from that?

Muslim immigrant rapists believe that all non-Muslim and uncovered women can be lawfully taken for sexual use; hence rape and sexual assaults are justified.

So then logically, Swedish Muslims should be over-represented in the Swedish rape statistics? They're not. Does the article have any explanation for it's absence? No.

Further down in the article:

Gang rapes of individual Swedish women have been particularly brutal

Ok, this will be good. So what's the example?

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article24230795.ab

Google translate it to read it. Yes, it's correct that this started out as a big tabloid news about a gang of refugees molesting a woman in a wheel chair. But it turned out to be bullshit. It was all a set up to nail them for this. The witnesses fucked up, and the cops got them to admit to lying. The media had been purposefully manipulated in order to create a scandal and whip up sentiment against Muslim refugees. And they were caught doing it! Yet, this article wasn't aware of this.

There's another similar one like this where a man in a wheel chair accused a Muslim refugee of stealing his bag. That made big news. Then it turned out that the guy in the wheel chair was a politician for the Sweden democrats (racists) and he was known for saying loads of racist stuff. None of the witnesses could support his version of events. So it silently went away.

There's just so many easy to check factual errors in the article. These people haven't checked shit. They've just taken stuff they've found on-line and run with it.

Taking in large numbers of Muslims into a highly secular country is not problem free. But can we at least have an adult conversation about it, instead of this shit?

 

[angelo]

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Meh. I don't know much about the SPLC; I quoted Wikipedia, which is a 'quick and dirty' source for determining what other sources are both safe and worthy of clicks.

My quote from Wiki consists of two lines - one quotes both SPLC and Horowitz's pal Spencer; The other (from a wiki editor whose identity I can't be bothered to pursue) simply says 'The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam"' FrontPage Magazine doesn't appear to be worthy of a click; particularly in the light of angelo's previous choices of 'sources', such as JihadWatch.

But Wikipedia doesn't do its own research. It's a quick and dirty source for determining what other sources are saying about other sources; and even Donald Trump can tell you what he's heard other people saying. Seeing as how lots of leftists describe people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam" too, if finding out that leftists have called somebody those things is all it takes to convince you he isn't worth a click, then you're allowing one extreme point of view to put a limit on your reading. Now, given that Wikipedia is trustworthy, if Wikipedia had told you that a selection of mostly factual moderate articles had called Horowitz "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam", that would make a better case for not clicking; but Wikipedia isn't really in the business of passing judgment on which of its sources are moderate. They'll just tell you who said it, and leave it up to you to have learned whether that's someone not to trust.

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are not entitled to their own facts.

Quite so. So can you tell whether somebody is trying to have his own facts by checking whether a leftist called him an "anti-Muslim extremist"?

No, I can't; Which might be why I said:

In the 'good old days', governments simply told the press what they could or couldn't publish, and all you got was the government approved point of view. Then the idea of the 'free press' came about, and we got the views of anyone who had the resources and intelligence to establish, produce, print and market a newspaper. This was a significant improvement; a single biased source was replaced by a diverse range of sources, most of which couldn't be too biased for fear of losing readers and going broke.

But now we have the Internet - no matter how marginal, counter-factual, or unpopular your ideas are, you can publish them to the world at almost no cost. And the revenue stream from this is not from sales, but from an advertising model that rewards clicks.

By simply going to look at a website, one is funding its publisher. So as a citizen, you have the duty to be wary about what sites you visit - quite aside from the fact that there are so many news (and 'news') sites that some kind of filter is required.

The Internet encourages extremists (on all sides), and this is not a good thing. Reading two opposing but equally counter-factual and extreme points of view is not equivalent to reading a selection of mostly factual moderate articles; Such reading actually makes people less well informed than they were before they started. The only thing worse is to limit your reading to only one extreme point of view - as it would appear angelo does on this topic.

The sum of all the things that make me disinclined to click that link is far too large to explicitly provide here. Hence my resorting to a quick and dirty heuristic. I am not surprised that that doesn't satisfy everybody - that's pretty solidly implied by 'quick and dirty'; I make no pretense of rigor, and it seems rather odd that you feel the need to criticize it's lack.

Unless you (or angelo, or anyone) presents a good reason why I should donate my click to angelo's choice of website, I shall continue not to do so. Because (and forgive my lack of rigor in this further explanation) it looks as dodgy as fuck.

Which limits your knowledge of the subject. I'm glad that's sorted!

 

[LordKiran]

I clicked your link. And then I clicked your link's link.

In October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

The SPLC appears to be unable to tell the difference between (anti-Muslim) extremists and anti-(Muslim extremists). I'm not claiming Horowitz isn't an extremist, but do you have any particular reason we should trust the SPLC to make that assessment for us?

Meh. I don't know much about the SPLC; I quoted Wikipedia, which is a 'quick and dirty' source for determining what other sources are both safe and worthy of clicks.

My quote from Wiki consists of two lines - one quotes both SPLC and Horowitz's pal Spencer; The other (from a wiki editor whose identity I can't be bothered to pursue) simply says 'The website has been described as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam"' FrontPage Magazine doesn't appear to be worthy of a click; particularly in the light of angelo's previous choices of 'sources', such as JihadWatch.

But Wikipedia doesn't do its own research. It's a quick and dirty source for determining what other sources are saying about other sources; and even Donald Trump can tell you what he's heard other people saying. Seeing as how lots of leftists describe people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam" too, if finding out that leftists have called somebody those things is all it takes to convince you he isn't worth a click, then you're allowing one extreme point of view to put a limit on your reading. Now, given that Wikipedia is trustworthy, if Wikipedia had told you that a selection of mostly factual moderate articles had called Horowitz "right-wing", "far-right", "Islamophobic" and "anti-Islam", that would make a better case for not clicking; but Wikipedia isn't really in the business of passing judgment on which of its sources are moderate. They'll just tell you who said it, and leave it up to you to have learned whether that's someone not to trust.

People are entitled to their own opinions; But they are not entitled to their own facts.

Quite so. So can you tell whether somebody is trying to have his own facts by checking whether a leftist called him an "anti-Muslim extremist"?

No, I can't; Which might be why I said:

In the 'good old days', governments simply told the press what they could or couldn't publish, and all you got was the government approved point of view. Then the idea of the 'free press' came about, and we got the views of anyone who had the resources and intelligence to establish, produce, print and market a newspaper. This was a significant improvement; a single biased source was replaced by a diverse range of sources, most of which couldn't be too biased for fear of losing readers and going broke.

But now we have the Internet - no matter how marginal, counter-factual, or unpopular your ideas are, you can publish them to the world at almost no cost. And the revenue stream from this is not from sales, but from an advertising model that rewards clicks.

By simply going to look at a website, one is funding its publisher. So as a citizen, you have the duty to be wary about what sites you visit - quite aside from the fact that there are so many news (and 'news') sites that some kind of filter is required.

The Internet encourages extremists (on all sides), and this is not a good thing. Reading two opposing but equally counter-factual and extreme points of view is not equivalent to reading a selection of mostly factual moderate articles; Such reading actually makes people less well informed than they were before they started. The only thing worse is to limit your reading to only one extreme point of view - as it would appear angelo does on this topic.

The sum of all the things that make me disinclined to click that link is far too large to explicitly provide here. Hence my resorting to a quick and dirty heuristic. I am not surprised that that doesn't satisfy everybody - that's pretty solidly implied by 'quick and dirty'; I make no pretense of rigor, and it seems rather odd that you feel the need to criticize it's lack.

Unless you (or angelo, or anyone) presents a good reason why I should donate my click to angelo's choice of website, I shall continue not to do so. Because (and forgive my lack of rigor in this further explanation) it looks as dodgy as fuck.

Which limits your knowledge of the subject. I'm glad that's sorted!

This relies on the assumption that your links provide knowledge.

 

[Jayjay]

Deliberately driving a truck through crowded street and killing 5 people in the process doesn't qualify as an execution in your book?

Executions aren't indiscriminate.

That makes the neo-nazi executions sound preferable to the islamist violence.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Executions aren't indiscriminate.

That makes the neo-nazi executions sound preferable to the islamist violence.

That wasn't the topic. The topic was if the words are the same.

Bit executions are much worse, since it specifically targets leaders of communities. Journalists and such. Does way more damage to communities

 

[Bomb#20]

Both groups have done zero beheadings in Sweden. But Swedish Nazis have executed people. This is in rececent years. Swedish Islamists have yet to execute anybody.

Deliberately driving a truck through crowded street and killing 5 people in the process doesn't qualify as an execution in your book?

Executions aren't indiscriminate.

Raoof and Leyla Ataei personally targeted Abbas Rezai for execution.
Subhi Othman personally targeted his daughter Jian Subhi Aref for execution.

 

[Bomb#20]

I make no pretense of rigor, and it seems rather odd that you feel the need to criticize it's lack.
Unless you (or angelo, or anyone) presents a good reason why I should donate my click to angelo's choice of website, I shall continue not to do so.

I don't give a rat's ass whether you donate a click. Sorry if you aren't picking up the subtext here. I'm not criticizing your lack of rigor. I'm criticizing your writing "You seriously need to learn who not to trust." and then quoting the Southern Poverty Law Center as evidence that somebody's an anti-Muslim extremist. Made my irony meter spike.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Both groups have done zero beheadings in Sweden. But Swedish Nazis have executed people. This is in rececent years. Swedish Islamists have yet to execute anybody.

Deliberately driving a truck through crowded street and killing 5 people in the process doesn't qualify as an execution in your book?

Executions aren't indiscriminate.

Raoof and Leyla Ataei personally targeted Abbas Rezai for execution.
Subhi Othman personally targeted his daughter Jian Subhi Aref for execution.

Exactly. This is executions. The aim is roughly the same, to get people to change their behaviours in ways the perpetrators want. But the scope is more limited in executions. "honour killings" is all about controlling women sexually and socially. There's some very specific behaviours that are being pushed for.

But executions are more total, in that the idea that they're trying to spread is that everybody who breaks the rules will be punished. Terror attacks works on increasing the risk of anybody getting hurt. That isn't nearly as terrifying.

The Swedish neo-Nazis Jacki Arklöv and Tony Olsson executed two police officers for daring to stop them. The union leader Björn Söderberg was executed by Nazis for expressing the view that union leaders shouldn't be Nazis, since that would make it hard to represent all their members.

That's way more bananas, terrifying and damaging than any bomb or rampaging truck on the lose IMHO.