Suicidal attack in Münster, Germany. 3 dead, 30 injured.

[parochial boy]

However, European countries like Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even France, have traditionally been Nation-States defined by ethnic groups that have inhabited those countries for over a thousand years or longer. Does it really make sense for these countries to have massive amounts of immigration change the identity of these countries that have been around for so long?

That's not actually true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

off, you know absolutely nothing about what France "looks like"

[King Lear]

However, European countries like Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even France, have traditionally been Nation-States defined by ethnic groups that have inhabited those countries for over a thousand years or longer. Does it really make sense for these countries to have massive amounts of immigration change the identity of these countries that have been around for so long?

That's not actually true

What’s not true about that statement? Is it not true that countries like England and Germany are Nation-States (countries that have been defined by one ethnic group for their entire history)? For example, the English people are descended from the Germanic Anglo-Saxons that settled what is now England 1500 years ago and have Predominanted England ever since (thus making England a Nation-State), whereas what is now Germany was populated by Germanic tribes 2000 years ago, that were the ancestors of the modern ethnic Germans that predominate in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland as well), thus making Germany a Nation-State.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

The homicidal/suicidal perpetrator is a so-called "Jens R.", so definitely not a Turk (as I have speculated above because of the planned Kurdish demonstration).

Jens is an arch-German name. Almost in the same league as Olaf, Detlef or Heinz-Rüdiger.

It's still a terrorist attack to me, albeit not an Islamist one. Jens R. wanted to instill fear and terror in the public community in order to draw attention. He was disgusting and I'm glad he's dead. 🤬

Of course it's a terrorist attack, whoever believes that it's not terrorism unless it's done by brown people or a Muslim is an idiot.

[parochial boy]

What’s not true about that statement? Is it not true that countries like England and Germany are Nation-States (countries that have been defined by one ethnic group for their entire history)? For example, the English people are descended from the Germanic Anglo-Saxons that settled what is now England 1500 years ago and have Predominanted England ever since (thus making England a Nation-State), whereas what is now Germany was populated by Germanic tribes 2000 years ago, that were the ancestors of the modern ethnic Germans that predominate in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland as well), thus making Germany a Nation-State.

I can't be bothered to trawl through every point. but varyingly:

1. Most European-nation states are more multi-ethnic, with populations descended from various waves of immigration, than you seem aware. Probably the vast majority of English citizens are partly, or mostly, of non-Anglo-Saxon descent thanks to things like celtic heritage as well as various waves of Irish, German, French Huguenot etc... immigration. You get similar pictures in France (Belgians, Italians, Spanish)é Austria (various Easter Eruopeans) and so on. In my home canton, over 60% of the population are first of second generation immigrants, and the remainder are still the descendents of French, German, Italian immigration throughout the 19th century and earlier.

2. The concept of the Nation-state has only really been recognised as a legitimate concept since 1648 (before that you had, for example, the Burgondes ruling over Francoophnes and Germanics), and it was only really in the 19th century that nationalism developed as a concept. For example, Italy and Germany only even unified as states during that century; and even at that time there was barely any even conception that, for example, the Estonians constituted a nation in their own right.

3. Nation-states are often multiethnic in nature (the Bretons in France and so on) and nations often developed along lines that did not adhere to ethnic divisions. Which is why proclaiming that Switzerland is a Germanic nation is intensely irritating to someone who is French-Swiss.

4. The ethnic make up of various territories has, does, changed over time; which is, for example, why Breslau is now called Wroclaw.

[MaxQue]

King Lear is really a fitting name.

[Beet]

From the news reports I’ve seen on CNN, we don’t know the identity or motives of the suspect, and if it turns out he’s of Turkish ancestry, even someone as Left-Leaning as myself would have to admit its time for Germany to restrict it’s Middle Eastern Immigration, in order to stop themselves from turning into France (as someone of 50% German ancestry, I know most of my German relatives would be horrified to see their country look like France). Personally, I support immigration to the United States, because the US is not a Nation-State, and almost everyone living in the US (besides the Native Americans), is descended from Colonists (the English Americans), Slaves (the African Americans), and immigrants (everyone else), who came to the country in the last 400 years. However, European countries like Germany, England, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even France, have traditionally been Nation-States defined by ethnic groups that have inhabited those countries for over a thousand years or longer. Does it really make sense for these countries to have massive amounts of immigration change the identity of these countries that have been around for so long?

Other than saying the U.S. isn't a nation state and some other nitpick details, I basically agree with this.

[King Lear]

What’s not true about that statement? Is it not true that countries like England and Germany are Nation-States (countries that have been defined by one ethnic group for their entire history)? For example, the English people are descended from the Germanic Anglo-Saxons that settled what is now England 1500 years ago and have Predominanted England ever since (thus making England a Nation-State), whereas what is now Germany was populated by Germanic tribes 2000 years ago, that were the ancestors of the modern ethnic Germans that predominate in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland as well), thus making Germany a Nation-State.

I can't be bothered to trawl through every point. but varyingly:

1. Most European-nation states are more multi-ethnic, with populations descended from various waves of immigration, than you seem aware. Probably the vast majority of English citizens are partly, or mostly, of non-Anglo-Saxon descent thanks to things like celtic heritage as well as various waves of Irish, German, French Huguenot etc... immigration. You get similar pictures in France (Belgians, Italians, Spanish)é Austria (various Easter Eruopeans) and so on. In my home canton, over 60% of the population are first of second generation immigrants, and the remainder are still the descendents of French, German, Italian immigration throughout the 19th century and earlier.

2. The concept of the Nation-state has only really been recognised as a legitimate concept since 1648 (before that you had, for example, the Burgondes ruling over Francoophnes and Germanics), and it was only really in the 19th century that nationalism developed as a concept. For example, Italy and Germany only even unified as states during that century; and even at that time there was barely any even conception that, for example, the Estonians constituted a nation in their own right.

3. Nation-states are often multiethnic in nature (the Bretons in France and so on) and nations often developed along lines that did not adhere to ethnic divisions. Which is why proclaiming that Switzerland is a Germanic nation is intensely irritating to someone who is French-Swiss.

4. The ethnic make up of various territories has, does, changed over time; which is, for example, why Breslau is now called Wroclaw.

The Genetic studies I’ve seen say that the English are of at least 60% Germanic ancestry (this is based on Y-DNA haplogroups), which makes sense considering most historical records suggest the Anglo-Saxons killed/displaced 50% of the indigenous Celtic population, Plus the Germanic English language has very few Celtic loanwords, and finally English people have much higher percentages of Nordic traits like Blue eyes and Blond hair then the more Mediterranean Celtic people. The French on the other hand are primarily descended from the Celtic Gauls (who were conquered by Julius ceaser in the first century BC, and slowly adopted the Latin language over the next 500 years), with significant admixture of the Germanic Franks and Italic Romans.

[Tender Branson]

Some updates:

* police raided the apartment of the [German] suspect Jens. R

* they found an AK-47 there, which was made unfit for use by the suspect

* they also found a lot of firecrackers (made in Poland)

* in the attack car, they also found firecrackers and a fake gun (they assumed explosives, but no)

* the suspect worked as a designer and was originally from the area

* at some point he also lived in Eastern Germany and moved back to NRW later

* the suspect might have had contacts to the far-right scene, but this is not clear yet

* on March 29, he wrote a letter to his relatives suggesting his suicide soon

* the attack came exactly 1 year to the day after the Stockholm attack by an Islamist

* the 2 dead victims were 2 older Germans from NRW and Lower-Saxony.

[Tender Branson]

Ἅιδης, you need to change the headline again:

2 dead + perpetrator

The 3+1 was an initial misinformation.

[parochial boy]

What’s not true about that statement? Is it not true that countries like England and Germany are Nation-States (countries that have been defined by one ethnic group for their entire history)? For example, the English people are descended from the Germanic Anglo-Saxons that settled what is now England 1500 years ago and have Predominanted England ever since (thus making England a Nation-State), whereas what is now Germany was populated by Germanic tribes 2000 years ago, that were the ancestors of the modern ethnic Germans that predominate in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland as well), thus making Germany a Nation-State.

I can't be bothered to trawl through every point. but varyingly:

1. Most European-nation states are more multi-ethnic, with populations descended from various waves of immigration, than you seem aware. Probably the vast majority of English citizens are partly, or mostly, of non-Anglo-Saxon descent thanks to things like celtic heritage as well as various waves of Irish, German, French Huguenot etc... immigration. You get similar pictures in France (Belgians, Italians, Spanish)é Austria (various Easter Eruopeans) and so on. In my home canton, over 60% of the population are first of second generation immigrants, and the remainder are still the descendents of French, German, Italian immigration throughout the 19th century and earlier.

2. The concept of the Nation-state has only really been recognised as a legitimate concept since 1648 (before that you had, for example, the Burgondes ruling over Francoophnes and Germanics), and it was only really in the 19th century that nationalism developed as a concept. For example, Italy and Germany only even unified as states during that century; and even at that time there was barely any even conception that, for example, the Estonians constituted a nation in their own right.

3. Nation-states are often multiethnic in nature (the Bretons in France and so on) and nations often developed along lines that did not adhere to ethnic divisions. Which is why proclaiming that Switzerland is a Germanic nation is intensely irritating to someone who is French-Swiss.

4. The ethnic make up of various territories has, does, changed over time; which is, for example, why Breslau is now called Wroclaw.

The Genetic studies I’ve seen say that the English are of at least 60% Germanic ancestry (this is based on Y-DNA haplogroups), which makes sense considering most historical records suggest the Anglo-Saxons killed/displaced 50% of the indigenous Celtic population, Plus the Germanic English language has very few Celtic loanwords, and finally English people have much higher percentages of Nordic traits like Blue eyes and Blond hair then the more Mediterranean Celtic people. The French on the other hand are primarily descended from the Celtic Gauls (who were conquered by Julius ceaser in the first century BC, and slowly adopted the Latin language over the next 500 years), with significant admixture of the Germanic Franks and Italic Romans.

Not sure how you missed the point so I'll make it again. European nation states are not immutable fixed forces of nature.

They change, national identities change, and national identities as they exist today, at best align imperfectly to historical ethnic groups

"Anglo-saxon" DNA makes up abou 30% of Englands genetic heritage (snd in any case, all you've done is support the fact tjat the English people's background id ethnically mixed). rying to create a genetic basis for what constitutes a nation is, aside from being fantastically racist, completely misunderstanding what a nation state is. A nation-state is constructed by identity, not some vague, mystical pseudoscience about genetics.

[Tender Branson]

It turns out that this was not a terrorist attack, because there was no political or religious motive.

In fact, the killer was a very wealthly industrial designer at some point not long ago and made a fortune by developing a lamp.

He owned 5 cars and several houses.

But recently, his economic success wore off and he became depressive - threatening his family with an axe.

So, a very personal attack rather than terrorism. Similar to the Las Vegas guy.

[Middle-aged Europe]

This thread is completely bizarre.