4 killed after hijacked truck drives into Stockholm department store

A couple months ago, Swedish officials were bragging about how their immigrants were fully blended into their society and there was no problem whatsoever with terrorism. What happened?

You would have thought that less than 24 hours after striking their biggest secular enemy Assad, they would have given the west a break. But no, apparently the jihad must go on and innocent people must keep dying.

A couple months ago, Swedish officials were bragging about how their immigrants were fully blended into their society and there was no problem whatsoever with terrorism. What happened?

Yeah I guess those liberal elites must not have been aware of what everyone else in Sweden knows. There are muslim enclaves in some cities that are No Go Zones for women, whites and the police.

The price a country pays. Today's policymakers in Sweden and elsewhere in Western Europe have ensured that such attacks will become a permanent, lurking threat to their citizens.

You would have thought that less than 24 hours after striking their biggest secular enemy Assad, they would have given the west a break.

I would have thought the complete opposite.

It's like fighting with your brother. If you punch him, it's something that happens. But if someone else attacks your brother, you'll fight them to the death.

Even if/when they may not like Assad, he's still part of the Middle East, and the west is interfering in the Middle East.

The more Trump attacks targets in the Middle East, the more fight back we're going to see from Middle Easterners.

The price a country pays. Today's policymakers in Sweden and elsewhere in Western Europe have ensured that such attacks will become a permanent, lurking threat to their citizens.

You're probably right, unfortunately. Their (euros) main error was imo to believe and dream that multiculturalism AND what they call 'social mixity' could work without too much control/interference from the state. And what started ok quickly turned into communitarianism and ghetttoisation. So yes I do blame euro govts for the way they managed their immigration policies although I still understand and respect their 'ideals'.

There is no question what countries such as japan or oz did 'worked' better i.e cherry picking migrants based on their family wealth, social status, religion, skin colour, skills and basically roi. Chosen immigration will always work better than a more liberal, perhaps 'fairer', immigration policy but helping rather than using immigrants still remains imo an ideal worth fighting for. The Swedes, Dutch, Germans, French etc had imo a decent and fair concept but they just executed it poorly, very poorly.

Video footage showed 'smoke'? You can plainly see fire in front of the cab in some of the published shots.

Strangerland APR. 08, 2017 - 09:35AM JST It's like fighting with your brother. If you punch him, it's something that happens. But if someone else attacks your brother, you'll fight them to the death.

That seems a bit simplistic and reductionist, giving far too much credence to an "us against them" narrative.

If this was truly a terrorist attack, it likely required extensive planning or at least a long time of the attacker working themselves up to it. Contrary to what some Islamophobes would like you to believe, Muslims are just like ordinary people in that they don't naturally risk their own lives in a barbaric attack on innocents at the drop of a hat. Just like every other community, you have to go through a period of indoctrination and demonization of innocents as "the enemy" to mentally psyche yourself up to an attack like this. So likely it was in the works long before Trump launched his missiles in this week's episode of "War Theater".

Either that, or this is a mental breakdown disguised as a terrorist attack. Which people will accept as a terrorist attack simply because a foreigner did it. But if they actually want to defeat terrorism instead of just congratulating themselves for not being foreign, they shouldn't accept it.

In either case, no doubt momentarily we'll be hearing an announcement that ISIS claims credit for the attack, because they always do no matter what the facts of the situation are. And we'll no doubt immediately hear the more gullible members of our public accept that claim, because they always do no matter what the facts of the situation are.

Quote: "Just like every other community, you have to go through a period of indoctrination and demonization of innocents as "the enemy" to mentally psyche yourself up to an attack like this"

Agreed, and not only psyching up. At some point in the indoctrination they are given three 'facts'.

One, their family are known and will be punished, even killed if they pull out. Two, they will go to heaven when they complete their mission. Three, their family will be proud of them, and given monetary compensation.

"Contrary to what some Islamophobes would like you to believe, Muslims are just like ordinary people in that they don't naturally risk their own lives in a barbaric attack on innocents at the drop of a hat. Just like every other community, you have to go through a period of indoctrination and demonization of innocents as "the enemy" to mentally psyche yourself up to an attack like this"

What is used to indoctrinate these people? On what basis can you demonize innocent people to the point you are prepared to massacre them?

It must be a pretty potent ideology. What's its basis?

What is used to indoctrinate these people? On what basis can you demonize innocent people to the point you are prepared to massacre them?

It must be a pretty potent ideology. What's its basis?

It's an ideology that teaches its believers that will be made victorious through peace and tolerance, and that they should strike love into the hearts of those who disbelieve, but a few bad apples have twisted it entirely out of context to justify holy war, martyrdom, intolerance and terror. Or so I'm told.

katsu78 - unbelievable. You want it to NOT be terrorism so bad, you are essentially putting your head in the sand and telling yourself everything is fine.

Its not.

Even Sweden's weak-kneed, ultra PC government has stated the obvious;

“Sweden has been attacked,” Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in a nationally televised press conference. “This indicates that it is an act of terror.”

Terrorist attack for sure.

No proof yet of any islamic links. Also IS now happily claims attacks by lone wolves.

Why shouldn't IS take the credit? The job description was clear and detailed, and offered salvation for troubled loners to come out of the woodwork. All went according to the book.

Another Ala-Nutbar idiot kills innocent people.

I haven't seen any reports about perpetrator been arrested and named yet.

Last news they arrested 2 persons of interest.

JimizoAPR. 08, 2017 - 11:56AM JST What is used to indoctrinate these people? On what basis can you demonize innocent people to the point you are prepared to massacre them?

I don't know. You might ask the US soldiers who were involved in the Mai Lai massacre. You might ask Dylann Roof, Alexandre Bissonnette, or Anders Breivik. You might well ask any of the Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists as well.

That's not a rhetorical point, by the way, I mean it literally. If you want to understand how people can be indoctrinated to demonize and murder innocents, you have to actually ask and listen to the people who do it. You can't just lump them into convenient groups together with other non-terrorists who haven't harmed anyone. That is itself a form of demonizing innocents that perpetuates the cycle of violence.

"I don't know. You might ask the US soldiers who were involved in the Mai Lai massacre. You might ask Dylann Roof, Alexandre Bissonnette, or Anders Breivik. You might well ask any of the Al Qaeda or ISIS terrorists as well."

Yes, ask all of them and don't dismiss anything they say because it is awkward or doesn't fit with the narrative you have chosen.

I think if a certain group has a track record of producing a minority of murderous fanatics, it isn't helpful to just shrug your shoulders and say all groups do it. Numbers matter.

JimizoAPR. 08, 2017 - 06:05PM JST I think if a certain group has a track record of producing a minority of murderous fanatics, it isn't helpful to just shrug your shoulders and say all groups do it. Numbers matter.

No one here is shrugging their shoulders. Don't dishonestly characterize the discussion just because you don't like the opinion being expressed.

Think through what you're saying for a moment: if all groups produce as you say, "a minority of murderous fanatics", then focusing on the larger group isn't an efficient, effective, or remotely logical way of addressing the problem, is it. If you actually want to deal with the problem, you focus on the smallest possible group that includes everyone committing violence with the smallest number of people who haven't committed violence and work out what makes them tick.

That is, assuming your goal is actually to solve the problem. Not everyone who comments on this conflict does.

@Katsu78

I'm very interested in the best way to solve this problem and I'm prepared to listen to all points of view without thumbing them down. I'm also interested in honesty.

First of all, given the number of Islamist atrocities in Europe and the scores of Islamist plots foiled by the security services, would you agree that Islam is producing more murderous fanatics than other religions or political ideologies at this moment in time in Europe? If not, tell me which group is.

I'm sorry for asking but I've wasted a lot of time with people who won't answer and launch into flannel on an epic scale when I ask this.

@Katsu78 you keep missing the point. A specific ideology is encouraging this behavior. You keep seeing Islam and Muslims as the same thing when the ideology (Islam) and the "follower" (Muslim) are separate. Some muslim's do not adhere strictly to their beliefs just like Christians don't adhere to old testament beliefs. Islam does instigate the fanaticism and terrorism unless the "follower" personally comprehends that in our modern society it just doesn't fit.

Think of it this way, Nazism is a horrible ideology and attempted to indoctrinate it's society, but not all who claimed to be Nazi's were bad people, Oskar Schindler for example. The ideology is the source of the problem, but not everyone (even though they said they were) does not follow it to the letter.

The ideology being promoted by ISIS, Wahhabism, etc... is promoting a cult like mentality and attempting to indoctrinate it's followers towards hostile and violent actions. Remember, Islam started under a peaceful banner, then evolved into a violent one before it's founder died.

Look up Dar al-Islam, and the expected privileged status only for followers of Islam that are implemented. It does not promote equality for all.

JimizoAPR. 08, 2017 - 10:33PM JST First of all, given the number of Islamist atrocities in Europe and the scores of Islamist plots foiled by the security services, would you agree that Islam is producing more murderous fanatics than other religions or political ideologies at this moment in time in Europe?

No, I wouldn't.

There is a huge difference between Islam and Islamism. The first is a religion practiced by roughly 23% of the human population to a huge degree of levels of devotion and a diverse variety of interpretations, as all human religions have. The second is a political ideology that says that the state should conform to Islamic principles, usually Sharia, in a way that approaches theocracy. It's important to stay well aware of that distinction because (by far) not all people who believe in Islam believe in Islamism, and it's the -ism that is the danger to people who support democratic society with individual rights. To say that a radical terrorist committed terrorism because of Islam while ignoring Islamism is as irrational as saying that they committed terrorism because they had a beard or because they wore shirts - it casts an overly large net at a huge swathe of non-violent people to get at a very tiny group of violent people.

But to go even further, I'm not even convinced every terrorist attack claimed by ISIS actually represents a solidly-believing supporter of Islamism. Do even a little research into ISIS's recruiting strategy and you'll see they practice almost as much dishonest rhetoric as Trump's election campaign. At least when recruiting from Western countries (because I understand their approach is quite different in Syria and Iraq), it's all about seeking out young, naive people. There are a lot of appeals to fear and paranoia (all of "them" are out to get you!) and rhetoric about joining something bigger than yourself. To small people who are frustrated with their lives and see no way out, this kind of rhetoric can be a very appealing rabbit hole that leads to hatred, radicalization, and ultimately death. I strongly think we need to consider the possibility that like Omar Mateen, the Orlando gay club shooter, many terrorists are more motivated by what we would call mental illness outside of the context of Islamophobic fearmongering. It may well be that in many cases Islamism isn't the cause of violence so much as the justification for the violence a person deeply in need of mental treatment feels an impulse to commit anyway.

You should be noticing by now that this closely parallels far-right nativist movements in "Western" countries. Whether you call the system "alt-right", "neo-nazis", or just "the far right", we see the same kind of paranoia ("Muslims are out to get you!") and rhetoric appealing to young, people frustrated with their lives and a nationalist vision of their country they can be a part of to compensate for their personal insufficiencies. When one of these people shoots up a mosque (or a black church, because bigotry is an equal-opportunity kind of hatred), we blame mental illness because the peoeple who commit these crimes look more like us and we don't want to share the blame. And that's fine, if we didn't contribute to their violence we don't share the blame. But to be rational then, the same approach needs to be use when we look at responsibility for terrorism against us by people who look like outsiders to our culture. It's all one giant interconnected system, hatred on both sides fueling more violence and more hatred. The only way to end the circle is to get outside of it.

@Katsu

I'm well aware of the differences between Islam and Islamism. To look at my own country, an ICM poll conducted last year in the UK revealed that 40% of UK Muslims would like to see Sharia introduced into the UK or parts of it. That is pretty close to your definition of Islamism. I don't trust polls completely, but I'd still be very concerned if the polls revealed 10% wanted this. Another poll revealed that over three quarters of UK Muslims would like to see blasphemy laws enforced in that they believed the Danish cartoonists should have been prosecuted for exercising their rights in a democratic country. Another poll conducted last year revealed 52% of UK Muslims would like to see homosexuality criminalised compared with 5% of the general public as a whole. I remember reading an article written by the prominent Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan who very honestly and courageously wrote about rampant anti-Semitism including holocaust denial and widespread beliefs that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Jews.

Are these beliefs a result of Muslims being marginalized in the UK.?

I do see a link between Islam and Islamism - the clue is in the names. Who becomes an Islamist or a Jihadi? Quakers? Secular humanists? Anglicans? People tell me it's a problem of Wahhabist preachers radicalising Muslims but the question has to be who is listening to this appalling stuff. There is a problem with the beliefs of many Muslims in 21st century secular Europe and it can't be shut down with cries of Islamophobia. These mainstream beliefs are far too close to what you call Islamism.

There really is a problem here. You despise the far right as I do, but you have to be honest and look at awful ideas coming from all groups.

JimizoAPR. 09, 2017 - 11:05AM JST I'm well aware of the differences between Islam and Islamism. To look at my own country, an ICM poll conducted last year in the UK revealed that 40% of UK Muslims would like to see Sharia introduced into the UK or parts of it. That is pretty close to your definition of Islamism.

I question that you truly do understand the difference between Islam and Islamism if you think you can make this kind of argument implying 40% of UK Muslims support Islamism and get away with it. Wanting to see Sharia "introduced" in the UK or parts of it could mean nothing more than wanting voluntary Sharia arbitration courts. Without knowing exactly what was meant by the question and exactly what was meant by the people answering, it's a meaningless statistic with no purpose other than to spread FUD about the UK Muslim community.

Another poll revealed that over three quarters of UK Muslims would like to see blasphemy laws enforced in that they believed the Danish cartoonists should have been prosecuted for exercising their rights in a democratic country.

Not surprising. In America there were blasphemy convictions as late as the 1920s and the Supreme Court only got around to ruling that blasphemy laws violated the first amendment as late as 1952. The belief that freedom of religion should only apply to your religion is hardly unique to Muslims. Without a quite detailed study of how Brits feel about blasphemy when the tables are turned, this statistic is also meaningless FUD.

Another poll conducted last year revealed 52% of UK Muslims would like to see homosexuality criminalised compared with 5% of the general public as a whole.

I question your assertion that only 5% of the general UK public support criminalization of homosexuality when Wikipedia shows the number at 22%. But to a degree it's beside the point - you do realize don't you that homosexuality was criminalized in the UK as recently as 1967.

You're pulling every vague and misleading statistic you can find to pretend Islam is synonymous with Islamism, but in the big picture of human civilization you're just showing UK Muslims to be very consistent with societal attitudes that our parents might have grown up with.

I do see a link between Islam and Islamism - the clue is in the names.

You cannot protest that you understand the difference between Islam and Islamism and then turn around and make comments like this. Pretending that Islam and Islamism are linked just because they have "Islam" in both words is proof you don't sufficiently understand the difference between them. Or do you also pretend that "National Socialists" and "Social drinkers" are linked because they both have the word "social" in them?

Who becomes an Islamist or a Jihadi? Quakers? Secular humanists? Anglicans?

The implication you're trying to make here is that non-Muslims don't commit violence the way Muslims do, but that argument falls flat when you remember that the UK was part of the US's farcical invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region, created ISIS, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We westerners may not generally shout "Allāhu akbar!" before killing stabbing someone in front of their face, but our societies are just as murderous.

@Katsu78 You'll never comprehend it until you experience it head on apparently. Islamic doctrine is the problem. But you're going to keep trying to deny it, or misunderstand it for what it is as much as possible.

The implication you're trying to make here is that non-Muslims don't commit violence the way Muslims do, but that argument falls flat when you remember that the UK was part of the US's farcical invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region, created ISIS, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We westerners may not generally shout "Allāhu akbar!" before killing stabbing someone in front of their face, but our societies are just as murderous.

Wow, just wow. So you're equating something that people would be charged with homicide. The difference between someone who commits murder and someone who commits an act of terrorism is MOTIVE. What was the motive behind the most recent terrorist attacks in Britain and Sweden, actions of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Quaida, and other daesh? Compare that to the motive of let's say, being murdered by someone who is a gang member, robber, stalker, hitman etc.... There obviously is a difference.

Wow, just wow. So you're equating something that people would be charged with homicide. The difference between someone who commits murder and someone who commits an act of terrorism is MOTIVE. What was the motive behind the most recent terrorist attacks in Britain and Sweden, actions of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Quaida, and other daesh? Compare that to the motive of let's say, being murdered by someone who is a gang member, robber, stalker, hitman etc.... There obviously is a difference.

Sure there's a difference in motivation. But the end result is the same. It's not like one is more dead than the other.