In the USA blacks get killed by the terrorists in blue, even being unarmed. This guy gets stopped by making him incapable with shots in the leg. What comparison are you precisely making?
The man traumatized by what he experienced in Syria. This is what the police has known about him. He recemtly was arrested and put in mental custody after he threw his furniture etc from his window on the street. Use google translate: 'Dader steekpartij Den Haag draaide al eerder door' VIDEODe 31-jarige Syrische Hagenaar die gisteren drie voorbijgangers neerstak in Den Haag, zou eerder dit jaar voor opschudding hebben gezorgd in dezelfde stad. Vanuit zijn woning in het centrum van de stad schreeuwde hij uit zijn raam en gooide hij zijn inboedel op straat. Binnenlandredactie 06-05-18, 19:46 Laatste update: 21:35 Dat melden ingewijden. Doordat hij stoelen, een matras en andere spullen op straat had gegooid, konden trams enige tijd niet door de straat rijden. De politie zette het gebied rond de woning af en het tramverkeer moest worden omgeleid. Onderhandelaar Na tussenkomst van een onderhandelaar van de politie gaf de man zich over. Daarna werd hij naar een speciale opvang voor verwarde personen gebracht. Daarna werd de straat schoongeveegd. De verdachte werd gisteren aangehouden nadat hij uit het niets drie mensen neerstak. Zij liggen nog gewond in het ziekenhuis, maar zijn buiten levensgevaar. De Syrische Hagenaar werd eerder dit jaar aangehouden nadat hij zijn huisraad het raam uit gooide. © Videostill Regio15 De man gooide eerder dit jaar zijn volledige huisraad op straat vanuit zijn bovenwoning aan het Lage Zand in Den Haag. © District8 Typical terrorist behaviour, pulling attention on himself, is it, German guy
Agreed, there were some asses, but I didn't say it was perfect. Back in the day, I was a ref and read that forum pretty extensively, but didn't participate much as there were other who had more experienced - at the time, there were a couple who were national level (one maybe international level) and had a lot of good insight on why calls were made. There was a subtlety there, though, in that a few posters would never say the ref was wrong, but if they didn't say the ref was correct, the regulars knew their position. But,. it was also run as a forum to gain knowledge, not to say "ref suck" and such. The way I viewed it was like this, as a comparison. Here in the P&CE, we have some people who are quite knowledgeable about the law, but we also have a few actual lawyers. The lawyers know the law, and sometimes comment on articles which speak of law-things but are not written by lawyers. Similar to how the Ref forum speaks of articles by people who are not refs. YMMV
Don't colonize next time. This PSA will be repeated from time to time to make sure the message isn't lost on those who most need it.
Perhaps you've heard of South Africa and this little thing called Apartheid? That's 100% Dutch, right there.
Middle Eastern? None. But Royal Dutch Shell has some major drilling operations in Malaysia, IIRC. A pretty good size one in the southern part of the continent. EDIT: Youshou posted as I was finishing. Gee, I wonder why they had those little port thingies in Western Africa. What could they possibly have shipped from there....?
That is right, like New York, they had it first before the British. I recently did some reading about Taiwan and how it went back and forth between the Portuguese, the Dutch the Chinese and the Japanese.
I'd rather you name the Euro nations that interfered with North Africa and are now whining about terrorism.
Well the one that started is German, they did try to help the Italians keep and expand their colonies in north Africa during WW2, but never actually had one there. That is why it is a silly talking point, if referring to the German or to the Dutch.
It refers to Europeans, regardless of nationality. That's why people who say it's a silly talking point need to put down the bottle
So you're gonna lump the Swiss in with the British/Dutch/French/Portuguese/Spanish? Or are we gonna talk about governments or individuals or groups profiting from colonization/slavery directly? Or indirectly? If we're talking about 'Europeans' as causes for terrorism it's more a function of capitalism/mercantilism/religion than nationalities or (at the time non-existent) supra-national unions.
Once you open the bottle, the genie gets out. If Euros are wetting the bed because of Islamic terrorism, they needed to have convinced one another centuries ago to live on the resources they could find in Europe. Most of what they're so afraid of is the result of past colonization.
In all of what- the acts that seem to trigger White/White1965 to the point where he feels the need to link them? The Ottoman Empire isn't involved here. This is about a people whose culture was destroyed by the same Europeans who didn't want to allow them to assimilate entirely into whatever passes for European culture. If you want me to stop posting, just ask. I certainly didn't expect this sort of partisan inquisition from you. Or from Dapip, who liked your post.
I'm not trying to be partisan here, I have a reasonable historical understanding of colonialism and based on what you are saying I think you are oversimplifying things. For example the Ottomans were a colonial power, that post WWI was split up by the various colonial powers (mostly France/UK), and that action rather than the Ottoman colonialism/expansion in North Africa seems to be a bigger issue for generating the migrant situation that is causing the xenophobic response in Europe now. Not saying that it's not an issue, but colonialism as a cause for this seems more proximate (and specific to the region affected) than an actual cause.
Me liking the post, is more about the continuous nature of human conflict, not necessarily thinking that some white Europeans/Americans don't overreact to news of "other people's terrorism"
The Ottomans were a HUGE colonial empire. They, and the Umayyads and Abbasids before them, extensively colonized North Africa and the Horn of Africa, and also had significant outposts in coastal East Africa (Tanzania, Zanzibar, etc.). All engaged in the slave trade, up to and including the Atlantic slave trade that we are all familiar with. This is despite the legendary (relative) tolerance of the Umayyads in particular.
So a Generalization of all Europeans, ok then. Man some people forget that world history is longer than 300 years. The Hungarians and Polish do use the idea that they were not colonizing powers, so why should they be forced to take in immigrants. Now the reasons that most countries were not colonizers is because of lack of opportunity more than everything else. I am sure the Aztecs would have loved to raid Europe and Africa to capture people to sacrifice to the gods, but they never got to develop the technology so they had to settle for local victims.