- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 0
Sure "not all Muslims". That's true. But many cases show how stupid the "only 0.0x% commit terrorist attacks" argument is. Not all Muslims are the problem but the problem is also way bigger than a lot of people admit. A lot of times many more than the actual terrorist are involved in planning the attack, providing support, buying weapons or explosives, hiding a suspect or are guilty of not handing him over to police.
Anis Amri who killed 12 people and injured 50 in Berlin had contact to a dozen of Mosques and various people known as extremists. He even was important enough for one Mosque to carry a key with him during his attack/escape. Apparently, there's a mosque in Berlin which is basically known for being a gateway into radical Islam, including joining IS and similar groups in Syria (lol).
He had contact persons in this Muslim community but also a key to another Mosque 300 miles away in 'Dortmund'. Think about that, he wasn't even a regular visitor at this time. It's undeniable that he operated out of one or multiple Muslim communities.
4 people were arrested in Dortmund and one in Berlin as assistants. Now those are only people where there's basically something like a 'proof', something like records of incriminating communication with Amri. If you don't bury your head in the sand, it's rather obvious that you can't proof/investigate every person who knew exactly what was going on and that there are even more people who at very least have an idea of what's going on or what their leaders support. Now how big is the problem?
How many are involved in even a single case like this? Exactly 1 terrorist out of X Muslims in Germany because he was the one who actually killed people? At least 6 because they were accomplices? What about the people who go to the same religious leaders in those communities and listen to them every day? And will continue to do so after some of their members' involvement was made public?
And did so all the time after some of their members joined ISIS in Syria? Not a problem at all as long as they don't kill a dozen of people and only 0.0x % of Muslims do that?
Anis Amri who killed 12 people and injured 50 in Berlin had contact to a dozen of Mosques and various people known as extremists. He even was important enough for one Mosque to carry a key with him during his attack/escape. Apparently, there's a mosque in Berlin which is basically known for being a gateway into radical Islam, including joining IS and similar groups in Syria (lol).
He had contact persons in this Muslim community but also a key to another Mosque 300 miles away in 'Dortmund'. Think about that, he wasn't even a regular visitor at this time. It's undeniable that he operated out of one or multiple Muslim communities.
4 people were arrested in Dortmund and one in Berlin as assistants. Now those are only people where there's basically something like a 'proof', something like records of incriminating communication with Amri. If you don't bury your head in the sand, it's rather obvious that you can't proof/investigate every person who knew exactly what was going on and that there are even more people who at very least have an idea of what's going on or what their leaders support. Now how big is the problem?
How many are involved in even a single case like this? Exactly 1 terrorist out of X Muslims in Germany because he was the one who actually killed people? At least 6 because they were accomplices? What about the people who go to the same religious leaders in those communities and listen to them every day? And will continue to do so after some of their members' involvement was made public?
And did so all the time after some of their members joined ISIS in Syria? Not a problem at all as long as they don't kill a dozen of people and only 0.0x % of Muslims do that?
