QuoteHundreds attend funeral of Copenhagen gunman
Copenhagen (AFP) - Hundreds of people on Friday attended the Islamic burial of the gunman who killed two people in twin shootings in Copenhagen last weekend.
Omar El-Hussein, 22, was placed in an unmarked grave in the Muslim cemetery in Broendby, on the outskirts of Copenhagen, watched by around 500 people, mostly young men wearing thick black jackets against the cold and rain, an AFP reporter said.
El-Hussein, a Danish citizen of Palestinian origin, has been identified by police as the gunman who shot dead two people -- a filmmaker and a volunteer Jewish security guard -- in the Danish capital last weekend.
Before the burial, a short ceremony was held at a Copenhagen mosque following Friday prayers.
A man of east African origin, who refused to give his name, told AFP about the ceremony: "There were a lot of young people that you don't normally see there... because they knew Omar. Some of them were gang members.
"They are my brothers too because they believe in Allah and the Prophet Mohammed, but their lifestyle doesn't have a lot to do with Islam," he said.
A handful of those who were there he recognized as members of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, but there were also many "normal Muslims," the man said.
"A Muslim cannot be denied a funeral. God will judge him," he said.
A young man who said he knew El-Hussein described him as "normal".
"He just made the wrong choices, I do not see him as a terrorist," said the man, who gave his name as Mohammed.
El-Hussein had been linked to a criminal gang formed on the Copenhagen inner-city estate where he grew up.
Some of those who attended the funeral had covered their faces with scarves and hoods.
"We don't trust you. We say one thing (to you) and then you report something else," one man -- sporting a shaved head, baggy trousers and a beard -- told a journalist.
- Muslim community divided -
Copenhagen's Muslim community was divided ahead of the funeral.
A spokesman for the Danish Islamic Burial Fund objected to El-Hussein being buried at a cemetery run by his group.
"My concern is over extremist attitudes and actions on both sides," Ahmet Deniz told the Jyllands-Posten newspaper before the burial.
The funeral organiser, Kasem Said Ahmad, also from the Islamic Burial Fund, rejected claims that large numbers attending the funeral could be interpreted as support for the alleged gunman.
"It is a support for the family, not for him," he told Jyllands-Posten.
At the Friday sermon, held in Arabic, topics included how Muslims can work with each other to create a peaceful society, and the "threat" against Danish Muslims' security in the wake of the attacks.
Members of the Muslim community have reported a rise in anti-Muslim violence and discrimination across Denmark since the attacks.
"It's physical abuse in the form of stranglehold, violence, spitting and pushing," Khaterah Parwani, a spokeswoman for anti-discrimination group DRC, told public broadcaster DR.
Denmark has been left in shock after the shootings in Copenhagen which targeted a meeting on free speech and Islam and the capital's main synagogue.
Copenhagen police late Friday said El-Hussein's DNA had been found at the site of the first shooting.
The 22-year-old was reportedly radicalised during a one-year stay in prison for stabbing a man. He was released just two weeks before the killings.
The attacks have prompted parallels with the Islamist attacks in Paris last month, in which 17 people died.
http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-attend-funeral-copenhagen-gunman-190741201.html
What the fuck, Denmark?
Are you surprised that we also have idiots living here?
The media always talk of a "tiny minority", unfortunately it is a "substantial minority" imo.
Quote from: Liep on February 26, 2015, 02:51:11 AM
Are you surprised that we also have idiots living here?
Yes, but are those idiots also holding important positions in your law enforcement authorities, media and politics?
Because, for starters, a funeral like this should not have been even allowed. I don't know what official legal instruments your authorities have, but even if they are not robust, surely pressure could have been put on the family to make the funeral a quiet, private affair, without this being advertised in advance. So that's the first score for idiots.
Then, as the article suggests, there were gang members / islamist group members in attendance, so where the hell were your anti-terrorist services? Again, even if you cannot arrest someone for attending a funeral, these people could have been prevented from attending by some form of mild obstruction from the authorities. This of course assumes your security services know who these people are - if they do not, it is even more damning. So that's the second score for idiots.
And finally, the elephant in the room - the "muslim community is divided". Really? That's a fucking disgrace that they are divided over an issue that is so black and white, at least from the perspective of fundamental principles of a country they chose to live in. What are the mainstream media outlets and politicians proposing to do about this fact? To put things into perspective, there are only 250,000 Muslims in Denmark. So 500 Muslims attending a funeral of a Muslim terrorist is, proportionally, the same as if 150,000 (or so) Germans attended a funeral of a nazi murderer. I don't think we would be very happy to learn that while "Germans are divided over the issue of Holocaust, most still condemn it" either. So that's the third score for idiots.
Martinus hates Freedom. What a surprise.
Thousands of people attend the funerals of triad leaders in Hong Kong. Do we stop these events? No, because they are legal and people have the freedom to attend legal events. The police go and videotape the entire thing for future reference but that's it. We know that almost everybody who attends are triads but we can't prosecute them until we build a case with actual evidence.
I don't hate Freedom. I just root for the English and/or the Romans in Mel Gibson movies. :bowler:
Quote from: Monoriu on February 26, 2015, 03:40:40 AM
Thousands of people attend the funerals of triad leaders in Hong Kong. Do we stop these events? No, because they are legal and people have the freedom to attend legal events. The police go and videotape the entire thing for future reference but that's it. We know that almost everybody who attends are triads but we can't prosecute them until we build a case with actual evidence.
Now, if they were blocking roads...
This is what free speech is all about.
It makes it convenient to know who thinks this guy was not a terrorist (I guess a mere murderer is alright?).
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 03:24:06 AM
Then, as the article suggests, there were gang members / islamist group members in attendance, so where the hell were your anti-terrorist services? Again, even if you cannot arrest someone for attending a funeral, these people could have been prevented from attending by some form of mild obstruction from the authorities. This of course assumes your security services know who these people are - if they do not, it is even more damning. So that's the second score for idiots.
Much easier for intelligence and law enforcement agencies to just let them show up.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 03:41:01 AM
I don't hate Freedom. I just root for the English and/or the Romans in Mel Gibson movies. :bowler:
You simply haven't internalized the idea of free speech. That's okay, a lot of Euros have the same problem.
Of course it doesn't stop 'authorities' acting promptly, like the French did when they rapidly buried the terrorists in unmarked graves; so not allowing any venerations of them as martyrs.
But, as others have said, maybe the Danish authorities wanted to give 'fellow travellers' a platform on which to stand and highlight themselves to police.
Quote from: mongers on February 26, 2015, 09:04:12 AM
Of course it doesn't stop 'authorities' acting promptly, like the French did when they rapidly buried the terrorists in unmarked graves; so not allowing any venerations of them as martyrs.
But, as others have said, maybe the Danish authorities wanted to give 'fellow travellers' a platform on which to stand and highlight themselves to police.
I think people fail to realize that the Danish government has far less sweeping powers than the French government. That can be good. Look how inefficient the Danish government was compared to the French, for instance, when it came to identifying Jews and shipping them to Germany in WW2.
Frankly, I'd rather live in Denmark, and accept the fact that disaffected people are permitted at funerals.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 09:31:08 AM
I think people fail to realize that the Danish government has far less sweeping powers than the French government. That can be good. Look how inefficient the Danish government was compared to the French, for instance, when it came to identifying Jews and shipping them to Germany in WW2.
Frankly, I'd rather live in Denmark, and accept the fact that disaffected people are permitted at funerals.
Wow that went to a weird place.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 08:55:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 03:41:01 AM
I don't hate Freedom. I just root for the English and/or the Romans in Mel Gibson movies. :bowler:
You simply haven't internalized the idea of free speech. That's okay, a lot of Euros have the same problem.
What interest me more is the real world use and exercise of free speech, rather than just a strictly legal view point.
I'd be keen to find data broken down for how much Americans, Canadians, Europeans and others actually use their rights to free speech. I wonder how much research has been done on that?
Quote
"He just made the wrong choices, I do not see him as a terrorist," said the man, who gave his name as Mohammed.
The "wrong"/"bad choices" line gets dragged out a lot here when some dirtbag, often a sports professional, gets busted for doing something wrong. The inference is that he's generally a great guy who just made a bad choice. Like it's impossible that he's simply a terrible human being.
Quote from: mongers on February 26, 2015, 09:38:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 08:55:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 03:41:01 AM
I don't hate Freedom. I just root for the English and/or the Romans in Mel Gibson movies. :bowler:
You simply haven't internalized the idea of free speech. That's okay, a lot of Euros have the same problem.
What interest me more is the real world use and exercise of free speech, rather than just a strictly legal view point.
I'd be keen to find data broken down for how much Americans, Canadians, Europeans and others actually use their rights to free speech. I wonder how much research has been done on that?
I have no idea what the hell you mean.
What kind of mild obstruction do you have in mind Marty?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 10:02:28 AM
I have no idea what the hell you mean.
I think I know what he means but I have no idea how he thinks it could be quantified.
I think it should be remembered that when you grant a government the power to harass people (or mildly obstruct them), you've also granted the government the power to harass you. A government invested with the power to break up funerals is a government that is invested with the power to break up a gay pride parade.
Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2015, 10:08:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 26, 2015, 10:02:28 AM
I have no idea what the hell you mean.
I think I know what he means but I have no idea how he thinks it could be quantified.
My only guess is that means speech he deems meaningful as opposed to speech he deems non-meaningful. But that would be absurd and arbitrary.
Quote from: mongers on February 26, 2015, 09:38:26 AM
What interest me more is the real world use and exercise of free speech, rather than just a strictly legal view point.
I'd be keen to find data broken down for how much Americans, Canadians, Europeans and others actually use their rights to free speech. I wonder how much research has been done on that?
Really don't think there's any measurable metric for that other than the legal one: either somebody goes to jail for saying something, or they don't.
Or are you just beginning to ramp up another one of your oblique "ZOMG AMERIKA ISNT REALLY ABOUT FREE SPEECH AT ALL" criticisms, despite coming from a big steaming pile of European hypocritical bullshit?
I suspect what mongers is trying to get at is how often citizens make statements that piss the government off. Since of course the amount of free speech excercised is simply the amount of speech, of any kind, produced. On Languish, the poster with the highest post count is the one excercising free speech the most.
Why would you stop people from attending funerals? Doesn't compute.
And it's hardly news that moderate Muslims support the crazy.
Why should they stop people from attending the funeral? I don't think Denmark restricts or regulates the funerals of other criminals, why should they restrict or regulate this one?
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:09:39 PM
Why should they stop people from attending the funeral? I don't think Denmark restricts or regulates the funerals of other criminals, why should they restrict or regulate this one?
They should do so because failing to do so irritates Some Guy on the Internet.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:09:39 PM
Why should they stop people from attending the funeral? I don't think Denmark restricts or regulates the funerals of other criminals, why should they restrict or regulate this one?
They should do so because failing to do so irritates Some Guy on the Internet.
I imagine a country governed along those lines would be well-nigh utopian.
I think it is because it could be interpreted as supporting terrorism (Which, to some people there, it probably was). That makes people angry so they want something done about it.
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:09:39 PM
Why should they stop people from attending the funeral? I don't think Denmark restricts or regulates the funerals of other criminals, why should they restrict or regulate this one?
They should do so because failing to do so irritates Some Guy on the Internet.
I imagine a country governed along those lines would be well-nigh utopian.
Well, Martopian, anyway.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:16:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:15:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:11:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 12:09:39 PM
Why should they stop people from attending the funeral? I don't think Denmark restricts or regulates the funerals of other criminals, why should they restrict or regulate this one?
They should do so because failing to do so irritates Some Guy on the Internet.
I imagine a country governed along those lines would be well-nigh utopian.
Well, Martopian, anyway.
I was picturing it responding to all some-guy-on-the-internet-injunctions, not just the ones coming from Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 12:16:45 PM
I think it is because it could be interpreted as supporting terrorism (Which, to some people there, it probably was). That makes people angry so they want something done about it.
I guess that, if hate-violence = terrorism, attending the funeral could be seen as supporting terrorism. I think we are defining terrorism so broadly as to destroy its meaning if we call this guy a terrorist, though. He seemed to be killing people out of anger, not as part of some political message (unless he left such a message and I just missed that fact).
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:20:45 PM
I guess that, if hate-violence = terrorism, attending the funeral could be seen as supporting terrorism. I think we are defining terrorism so broadly as to destroy its meaning if we call this guy a terrorist, though. He seemed to be killing people out of anger, not as part of some political message (unless he left such a message and I just missed that fact).
Ok then.
I think it is because it could be interpreted as supporting hate-violence (Which, to some people there, it probably was). That makes people angry so they want something done about it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 12:16:53 PM
Well, Martopian, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands
Quote from: Valmy on February 26, 2015, 12:28:43 PM
Ok then.
I think it is because it could be interpreted as supporting hate-violence (Which, to some people there, it probably was). That makes people angry so they want something done about it.
Agreed. And some of those attending the funeral were almost surely motivated by the fact that they knew how irritated those to whom you refer would be. Those types probably didn't care why the guy died, just that he was anti-establishment, like them, and they could poke a finger in the eye of the establishment/Marti types by attending his funeral. Others, I am sure, attended because they wanted to make a pro-bigot (the dead guy) political statement, as you say.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 10:04:21 AM
What kind of mild obstruction do you have in mind Marty?
Asking them to show up at a police precinct to answer some questions. Or showing up in their houses to ask them few questions, unfortunately holding them up long enough to prevent them from attending the funeral.
I think it is bizarre to argue this guy was *not* a terrorist. Targetting random civilians to send a political/religious/ideological message and/or to intimidate a group of people is the very definition of terrorism, even if the terrorist is acting alone. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 10:04:21 AM
What kind of mild obstruction do you have in mind Marty?
Asking them to show up at a police precinct to answer some questions. Or showing up in their houses to ask them few questions, unfortunately holding them up long enough to prevent them from attending the funeral.
I don't think you're obliged to stick around and answer police questions if you have somewhere to go; nor are you obliged to go to the police precinct at a time that is inconvenient to you. I doubt that sort of police-state methods could actually work in Denmark.
Would you expect the police to undertake this sort of action on its own initiative, or do you think instructions for this should come from some sort of politician?
No wonder that your country is overrun with terrorists.
grumbler, would you argue that Anders Breivik was not a terrorist?
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:14:56 PM
No wonder that your country is overrun with terrorists.
It is?
Vancouver is a hotbed of radicals ready to commit horrendous acts at a moment's notice.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:11:03 PM
I think it is bizarre to argue this guy was *not* a terrorist. Targetting random civilians to send a political/religious/ideological message and/or to intimidate a group of people is the very definition of terrorism, even if the terrorist is acting alone. :huh:
Of course he was a terrorist. Only sillies would argue otherwise.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:08:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 10:04:21 AM
What kind of mild obstruction do you have in mind Marty?
Asking them to show up at a police precinct to answer some questions. Or showing up in their houses to ask them few questions, unfortunately holding them up long enough to prevent them from attending the funeral.
So they would ask the people who came to the funeral to do this before they went so they could stop them from going. All several hundred of them.
There is one slight problem with this plan....
I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that this guy wanted to incite terror.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:15:33 PM
grumbler, would you argue that Anders Breivik was not a terrorist?
He said he was, and explicitly acted for political impact, so I take him at his word. Do you think Charles Manson was a terrorist?
I don't thoink it is "bizarre" to distinguish between terrorism and hate crimes. In fact, I think it is bizarre to
not so distinguish. If El-Hussein
was a terrorist, who was he terrorizing: movie directors, or rent-a-cops?
Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2015, 01:36:35 PM
I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that this guy wanted to incite terror.
I think he chose his targets because he wanted to kill his targets, not because he wanted to incite terror. All I have to go on, of course, is his actions. If he left some kind of a statement, then I'd re-evaluate based on what it said. But my baseline assumption is that violence
isn't terrorism. YMMV.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 10:11:35 AM
Quote from: mongers on February 26, 2015, 09:38:26 AM
What interest me more is the real world use and exercise of free speech, rather than just a strictly legal view point.
I'd be keen to find data broken down for how much Americans, Canadians, Europeans and others actually use their rights to free speech. I wonder how much research has been done on that?
Really don't think there's any measurable metric for that other than the legal one: either somebody goes to jail for saying something, or they don't.
jail isn't the only punishment.
Example:
- You could be sued for more money than you'd ever make in your life without the appropriate financial means to defend yourself against an army of lawyers
- A regulatory authority could suspend your license to speak (radio, television, etc)
- You could face a DOS on your website
- Government agencies could erect walls around you, refusing to buy any advertising for the radio/tv/newspaper hiring you; might not be a big deal in the US, could be quite problematic elsewhere
- A big corporation or a lobby group could put "subtle" pressure on your advertiser to incite them to stop buying ads in your media
- harrassment by the community with no legal/judicial protection
and probably other reasons that I haven't thought of too.
As Oex once said, freedom of speech means nothing if it's confined to your living room.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 02:02:59 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 01:15:33 PM
grumbler, would you argue that Anders Breivik was not a terrorist?
He said he was, and explicitly acted for political impact, so I take him at his word. Do you think Charles Manson was a terrorist?
I don't thoink it is "bizarre" to distinguish between terrorism and hate crimes. In fact, I think it is bizarre to not so distinguish. If El-Hussein was a terrorist, who was he terrorizing: movie directors, or rent-a-cops?
At the very least all of the people who were in the room/auditorium that he fired into.
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2015, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 26, 2015, 10:11:35 AM
Really don't think there's any measurable metric for that other than the legal one: either somebody goes to jail for saying something, or they don't.
jail isn't the only punishment.
Example:
- You could be sued for more money than you'd ever make in your life without the appropriate financial means to defend yourself against an army of lawyers
- A regulatory authority could suspend your license to speak (radio, television, etc)
- You could face a DOS on your website
- Government agencies could erect walls around you, refusing to buy any advertising for the radio/tv/newspaper hiring you; might not be a big deal in the US, could be quite problematic elsewhere
- A big corporation or a lobby group could put "subtle" pressure on your advertiser to incite them to stop buying ads in your media
- harrassment by the community with no legal/judicial protection
and probably other reasons that I haven't thought of too.
As Oex once said, freedom of speech means nothing if it's confined to your living room.
Your statement doesn't seem at all related to the one you are quoting. Are you arguing that all of those are examples of the measurable metric that the statement you quote refers to?
Quote from: Jacob on February 26, 2015, 01:18:13 PM
Hadn't noticed.
2 / 33 000 000 = overrun by terrorists.
Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs? :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 02:26:14 PM
Your statement doesn't seem at all related to the one you are quoting. Are you arguing that all of those are examples of the measurable metric that the statement you quote refers to?
there are many ways to measure freedom of speech and freedom of press. I have named a few I find relevant, none of them are absolutes.
While it is difficult to measre individual freedom of speech, we tend to equate it with freedom of the press, and for this, we have an index with an established methodology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index)
the only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.
Viper, thanks for the sincere reply.
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 02:06:00 PM
I think he chose his targets because he wanted to kill his targets, not because he wanted to incite terror.
Or possibly both. Murderers and terrorists can have more than one motive.
QuoteAll I have to go on, of course, is his actions. If he left some kind of a statement, then I'd re-evaluate based on what it said. But my baseline assumption is that violence isn't terrorism. YMMV.
He went and shot up a synagogue, which seems to be a favorite target for terrorists. I'm pretty comfortable calling him a terrorist.
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
the only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.
Thing is, some of your "punishments" could occur without having absolutely anything to do with freedom of speech. DOS attacks? Harassment by the community? Regulatory violations? That could be due to zoning issues for employee parking.
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2015, 03:29:13 PM
there are many ways to measure freedom of speech and freedom of press. I have named a few I find relevant, none of them are absolutes.
How do you measure any of the things you mentioned, given that none of them are, in fact, metrics of any sort whatever?
Quotethe only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.
I don't disagree, but also don't see what that has to do with the issue of metrics to which you responded. Indeed, what you described isn't government action. it's individual action. When we talk about "freedom of speech," we generally refer to it in connection with government action. A person's freedom of speech relative to other individuals is a matter of civil law, not freedom of speech
per se, as i understand the parlance of "freedom of speech." For instance, if your employer fires you for wearing a campaign button for a candidate he opposes, you are entitled to redress under unfair termination laws, not under a guarantee of freedom of speech in a constitution. Similarly, someone launching a DOS attack on your web site entitles you to sue for damages, rather than invoking freedom of speech guarantees.
Of course, it is possible that the Canadian constitution and laws allow you to invoke some freedom of speech guarantees against private individuals or corporations, and I am not aware of it, but, then, you weren't responding to a Canadian.
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2015, 03:29:11 PM
Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs? :unsure:
No idea.
Quote from: derspiess on February 26, 2015, 03:52:33 PM
He went and shot up a synagogue, which seems to be a favorite target for terrorists. I'm pretty comfortable calling him a terrorist.
That's fine. I'm not saying that you shouldn't call him a terrorist. Anyone can call him anything they like. I just don't think that governments should act against individuals who attend funerals because Some Guy on the Internet calls the deceased a terrorist.
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2015, 03:29:11 PM
Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs? :unsure:
Indeed. Why should we debate
anything, when we have people here perfectly willing to tell us what is the truth, facts be damned? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2015, 04:07:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 26, 2015, 03:29:11 PM
Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs? :unsure:
No idea.
I am sure you don't. It's a subtle point, and I've never seen you comprehend subtle.