Gunman (terrorist?) kills 8 in Czech town

LeChuck

CE Specialist
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
7,122
Location
فَبِأَيِّ آلاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31608932

A gunman has opened fire at a restaurant in the Czech Republic, killing eight people before shooting himself dead, officials say.

The man burst into the restaurant in the eastern town of Uhersky Brod around lunchtime, "shooting indiscriminately", the town's mayor Patrik Kuncar said.

The incident is not believed to be terrorism related.

Several people were injured in the attack, with one woman said to have suffered serious chest wounds.

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said he was shocked by the attack and offered his condolences to relatives of the victims.

'Lone shooter'
Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said the incident was the work of a "crazed individual".

The gunman has been described as a local man aged 60.
Click to expand...
 
Uzz said:
I can't help but see the double standards in reporting here.

Australian lone wolf Sydney coffee shop shooter? Media decided he was a terrorist (he was Muslim).

Czech lone wolf restaurant shooter? Gunman.
Click to expand...

The Sydney guy was already known to the authorities for his radical religious views.
 
Uzz said:
I can't help but see the double standards in reporting here.

Australian lone wolf Sydney coffee shop shooter? Media decided he was a terrorist (he was Muslim).

Czech lone wolf restaurant shooter? Gunman.
Click to expand...
Well their motivation for the attack plays into it doesn't it and actions before and during the attack play into it. Not every person who shoots someone is a terrorist. Didn't the Sydney guy have a the hostages hold up some sort of flag, ask for an ISIL flag and ask to see meet the Prime Minister. Also he had some prior charges related to threats over Australian involvement in Afghanistan.
 
Mihajlovic said:
The Sydney guy was already known to the authorities for his radical religious views.
Click to expand...

False. He was well known to the authorities due to his previous numerous convictions (including accessory to murder, and sexual offences) and a history of mental illness.

JustAFan said:
Well their motivation for the attack plays into it doesn't it and actions before and during the attack play into it. Not every person who shoots someone is a terrorist. Didn't the Sydney guy have a the hostages hold up some sort of flag, ask for an ISIL flag and ask to see meet the Prime Minister. Also he had some prior charges related to threats over Australian involvement in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


While I agree with your sentiment, if we take the word 'terrorism' at face value, ie to incite terror, wouldn't a man shooting 8 people in a restaurant be worthy of this description? Just as a man who shot people in a coffee shop is?

(I know there's a political aspect of terrorism which I haven't touched on).
 
Uzz said:
While I agree with your sentiment, if we take the word 'terrorism' at face value, ie to incite terror, wouldn't a man shooting 8 people in a restaurant be worthy of this description? Just as a man who shot people in a coffee shop is?
Click to expand...

This is a rather obtuse point of view to take. We both know the differences here.
 
Uzz said:
False. He was well known to the authorities due to his previous numerous convictions (including accessory to murder, and sexual offences) and a history of mental illness.




While I agree with your sentiment, if we take the word 'terrorism' at face value, ie to incite terror, wouldn't a man shooting 8 people in a restaurant be worthy of this description? Just as a man who shot people in a coffee shop is?

(I know there's a political aspect of terrorism which I haven't touched on).
Click to expand...
But is is that political aspect that makes a difference and it is disingenuous to try and leave it out of the discussion.

So let's drop the silly agenda and talk about this particular sad crime.
 
Uzz said:
I can't help but see the double standards in reporting here.

Australian lone wolf Sydney coffee shop shooter? Media decided he was a terrorist (he was Muslim).

Czech lone wolf restaurant shooter? Gunman.
Click to expand...

The Aussie guy asked for an ISIS flag!

And most news reports did state he was a lone gunman and mention his mental health problems and the stuff with his ex wife.

So let's drop the silly agenda and talk about this particular sad crime.
Click to expand...

Well said. Is there any way to stop a crazy gunman from wreaking havoc? I don't think so unfortunately. Condolences to the victims families for what appears to be a senseless killing
 
Desert Eagle said:
The Aussie guy asked for an ISIS flag!

And most news reports did state he was a lone gunman and mention his mental health problems and the stuff with his ex wife.



Well said. Is there any way to stop a crazy gunman from wreaking havoc? I don't think so unfortunately. Condolences to the victims families for what appears to be a senseless killing
Click to expand...
Education. Better care for the mentally ill. More difficult access to guns and other similar weapons. These steps all point to that.
 
Snow said:
Education. Better care for the mentally ill. More difficult access to guns and other similar weapons. These steps all point to that.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestions and I'm completely in agreement. The mentally ill part in particular. I don't know much about other countries but America has a big problem with it :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victoria-a-brownworth/crazy-every-day-americas-_b_4050673.html

http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/...ystem-families-struggle-to-find-quality-care/

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...rom-mental-disorders-than-anyone-else/246035/

Add in the fact that a lot of the homeless community is mentally ill, the cops and general public are trigger happy and their gun laws are lax, it's really the perfect storm for mass shootings.

What other developed and developing countries need to do is learn from the American example and not go down the same road.
 
I don't think any country is dealing with mental illness well enough. Perhaps some Nordic countries. As soon as the government needs money, this sector is usually one that gets slashed.

America is combined of about 50 countries (or so to speak). Gun laws and care for mentally ill varies from state to state.
 
Uzz said:
I can't help but see the double standards in reporting here.

Australian lone wolf Sydney coffee shop shooter? Media decided he was a terrorist (he was Muslim).

Czech lone wolf restaurant shooter? Gunman.
Click to expand...

It's down to their agenda.
 
I don't want to detract from what's actually happened here, and that's 8 people tragically, and needlessly losing their lives. I should have mentioned that in my second post.

JustAFan said:
We do but let's not tell him he is not as clever as he thinks he is. If you google terrorism his definition is not even the first one to come up. So much for face value
Click to expand...
I got:

1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism and terrorisation.

(Not posting a link as I'm on a work computer, but I've copied that from my phone after googling the word 'terrorism').

JustAFan said:
But is is that political aspect that makes a difference and it is disingenuous to try and leave it out of the discussion.

So let's drop the silly agenda and talk about this particular sad crime.
Click to expand...

From BBC some further developments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31608932
A gunman has opened fire at a restaurant in the Czech Republic, killing eight people before shooting himself dead, officials say.

The man burst into the Druzba restaurant in the eastern town of Uhersky Brod and started "shooting indiscriminately", mayor Patrik Kuncar said.

Police described it as the worst mass shooting incident on record.

Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec said it was not a terrorist attack.

Some 20 people were thought to have been in the restaurant at the time.

A waitress who was shot in the chest by the gunman is in a serious condition in hospital.

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said he was shocked by the attack and offered his condolences to relatives of the victims.

The suspect has been described as a local man in his 60s.

Called national TV
The town's mayor said he assumed the shooting "was an isolated incident".

"We have various anti-terrorist measures but we can see that, here, probably a lone shooter struck with no warning," he added.

"I'm rattled by this event. I never would have imagined something like this happening here, in a restaurant that I know well."

The man fired around 25 rounds as people at lunch at the restaurant
A huge police operation was rolled out in response to the attack
Mayor Patrik Kuncar met shocked residents at the scene
The restaurant's owner, Pavel Karlik, said the attacker had walked in to the property and started firing a handgun.

"I immediately ran out through the back door, along with other guests who then called an ambulance and police," he said.


The gunman had called a national television station before he started the attack.

Pavel Lebduska, head of regional broadcasting at the Prima channel, said the man had claimed "he was being bullied, no public institutions would help him, and that he had a gun and hostages and that he would deal with it his own way".

Mr Lebduska said the caller had given his name but the station would not reveal it for the time being. The station alerted the police immediately.

Mr Chovanec said on Twitter: "According to the available information, this was not a terrorist attack, but one carried out by an unbalanced individual."

Uhersky Brod is a town of 17,000 in the Moravia region, near the border with Slovakia.

Such shootings are rare in the country, says the BBC's Rob Cameron in Prague, but with hunting a popular hobby many people in rural areas own weapons.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a very sad case of a mentally ill person taking a gun and causing havoc. The same situation as the Sydney shooter.

One is called a gunman, the other a terrorist.

Desert Eagle said:
The Aussie guy asked for an ISIS flag!

And most news reports did state he was a lone gunman and mention his mental health problems and the stuff with his ex wife.
Click to expand...
So a mentally ill person, with no connection whatsoever with ISIS, no interaction with any of their agents, but simply asking for a flag makes him a terrorist?

The whole flag episode was just an attention seeking ploy. There was no deeper meaning to what he did other than kill because he lost the plot.

-----

I'm just trying to help show the double standards when it comes to reporting, that's all. Not making a case for either shooter here, so I don't want my words to be misconstrued further on.
 
Eboue said:
You aren't doing a very good job. There are double standards and those legitimate issues are muddied by you trying to drum up outrage where there isn't any cause.
Click to expand...
Drum up outrage? I haven't drummed up anything. In fact, I've been quite calm and stoic about the whole matter.

I think the Current Events on a Public Forum would be a good place to voice any opinions I have on the matter, in fact.
 
Uzz said:
Drum up outrage? I haven't drummed up anything. In fact, I've been quite calm and stoic about the whole matter.

I think the Current Events on a Public Forum would be a good place to voice any opinions I have on the matter, in fact.
Click to expand...

And your opinions are that there is an injustice being perpetrated by the media. And most people are outraged by injustices.

Why do you insist on playing games and obfuscating?
 
Eboue said:
And your opinions are that there is an injustice being perpetrated by the media. And most people are outraged by injustices.

Why do you insist on playing games and obfuscating?
Click to expand...
What makes you think I'm obfuscating anything? I'm quite clear and transparent on RedCafe.

If you'd like me to break things down further for you, I'd be happy to do so.

On a separate note-you never replied to my query on the Hiroshima thread.
 
Uzz said:
What makes you think I'm obfuscating anything? I'm quite clear and transparent on RedCafe.

If you'd like me to break things down further for you, I'd be happy to do so.

On a separate note-you never replied to my query on the Hiroshima thread.
Click to expand...

I mostly browse from phone and that thread will require a laptop to respond. I'll try to get to it tonight.

Your debating style is just a series of obfuscations. You write well and your arguments make basic sense but they don't hold up to scrutiny and you seem quite resistant to discussing beyond the surface level, preferring instead to make everything fit into your previously held worldview.

Why are we googling definitions of terrorism as if this is a junior high classroom? Everyone here knows the difference between the two events. If you want to argue that the Sydney hostage taker was not motivated by religion but was just a mentally insane person who latched on to something, go for it. I disagree but at least you will be addressing the issue. What you have done so far is draw broad strokes about two unrelated situations, cued up some menacing music and went "I'm not saying, I'm just saying". Basically, you're michael Moore.
 
Eboue said:
I mostly browse from phone and that thread will require a laptop to respond. I'll try to get to it tonight.

Your debating style is just a series of obfuscations. You write well and your arguments make basic sense but they don't hold up to scrutiny and you seem quite resistant to discussing beyond the surface level, preferring instead to make everything fit into your previously held worldview.

Why are we googling definitions of terrorism as if this is a junior high classroom? Everyone here knows the difference between the two events. If you want to argue that the Sydney hostage taker was not motivated by religion but was just a mentally insane person who latched on to something, go for it. I disagree but at least you will be addressing the issue. What you have done so far is draw broad strokes about two unrelated situations, cued up some menacing music and went "I'm not saying, I'm just saying". Basically, you're michael Moore.
Click to expand...

My discussions in the religion thread, the CH thread, the Palestine thread, and even the Breaking Bad thread would suggest otherwise. I've discussed quite extensively a lot of points, and to say it's not beyond a surface level is misguided. There are times when I miss out on a lot of replies as my presence on the site is sporadic, or I'm not being quoted directly so I can't actually respond. I like to think I make my point clearly and succinctly without having the need to write reams on something which doesn't require it.

There are moments, I agree, where I've written things implicitly. However, a high proportion of the time, the message of my post is clear as day. I don't really have the time to hold a person's hand and guide them through each word or my point of reasoning. If that's what constitutes as obfuscations, then we'll have to disagree on the meaning of the word. To be honest, there's nothing stopping you, or other people that may feel your way, to push me on an answer. Something I've done to myself on the board.

To me, it seems you're a little annoyed that I've called you up on a few things. I'd suggest not taking it to heart.

Honestly, I'm happy with the way I debate, and I prefer my method over yours or other's method. I don't want to make arrogant, self-serving, broad generalisations and let other posters defend me, or wave my degree around to demean other posters.

On the 'not saying/just saying', well that's just me making sure what I say isn't misconstrued by other posters, as there seems to be an overriding habit here of clinging onto one minor aspect of a post and blowing it out of proportion (Essex Rob and Chelsea thread).

On the topic-there are clear pedantic differences between the two situations. But fundamentally, we have two mentally disturbed individuals who have both committed heinous crimes. Both worked and operated alone, one, as you said, latched onto something else (asking for a flag), while the other made a threat to a national TV station.

Like yourself, most of the time I type from my phone so couldn't go into the fabric of my argument, but I think my views on this matter have been sufficiently addressed.
 
Last edited:
Uzz said:
False. He was well known to the authorities due to his previous numerous convictions (including accessory to murder, and sexual offences) and a history of mental illness.




While I agree with your sentiment, if we take the word 'terrorism' at face value, ie to incite terror, wouldn't a man shooting 8 people in a restaurant be worthy of this description? Just as a man who shot people in a coffee shop is?

(I know there's a political aspect of terrorism which I haven't touched on).
Click to expand...

What an obtuse post. The Australian shooter's motive for the shooting was religious, regardless of his previous criminal history. He even asked for an ISIS flag!
 
Uzz said:
My discussions in the religion thread, the CH thread, the Palestine thread, and even the Breaking Bad thread would suggest otherwise. I've discussed quite extensively a lot of points, and to say it's not beyond a surface level is misguided. There are times when I miss out on a lot of replies as my presence on the site is sporadic, or I'm not being quoted directly so I can't actually respond. I like to think I make my point clearly and succinctly without having the need to write reams on something which doesn't require it.

There are moments, I agree, where I've written things implicitly. However, a high proportion of the time, the message of my post is clear as day. I don't really have the time to hold a person's hand and guide them through each word or my point of reasoning. If that's what constitutes as obfuscations, then we'll have to disagree on the meaning of the word. To be honest, there's nothing stopping you, or other people that may feel your way, to push me on an answer. Something I've done to myself on the board.

To me, it seems you're a little annoyed that I've called you up on a few things. I'd suggest not taking it to heart.

Honestly, I'm happy with the way I debate, and I prefer my method over yours or other's method. I don't want to make arrogant, self-serving, broad generalisations and let other posters defend me, or wave my degree around to demean other posters.

On the 'not saying/just saying', well that's just me making sure what I say isn't misconstrued by other posters, as there seems to be an overriding habit here of clinging onto one minor aspect of a post and blowing it out of proportion (Essex Rob and Chelsea thread).

On the topic-there are clear pedantic differences between the two situations. But fundamentally, we have two mentally disturbed individuals who have both committed heinous crimes. Both worked and operated alone, one, as you said, latched onto something else (asking for a flag), while the other made a threat to a national TV station.

Like yourself, most of the time I type from my phone so couldn't go into the fabric of my argument, but I think my view on this matter have been sufficiently addressed.
Click to expand...

I am annoyed, yes. But not because you called me out. (Did you? I don't remember that happening.) I'm annoyed by your style of debate. Which is my problem, I was just explaining why I called you obtuse.

I don't think I have waved my degree around to demean posters. Certainly a political science degree is not all that difficult to obtain so it wouldn't be very effective to demean others with.
 
Nikhil said:
What an obtuse post. The Australian shooter's motive for the shooting was religious, regardless of his previous criminal history. He even asked for an ISIS flag!
Click to expand...

He was an attention seeking, mentally 'not quite there' individual. The flag aspect came into the situation much later. He had no connection to ISIS or any other religious group. Some later enquiries into the incident have debated whether he can be classified as a terrorist.

Anyway, I don't want to detract from the Czech incident any further, (and I take full responsibility in doing so). I think the main theme here is society's handling of mental illnesses, and the ease of gun ownership, both of which should be addressed.

Eboue said:
I am annoyed, yes. But not because you called me out. (Did you? I don't remember that happening.) I'm annoyed by your style of debate. Which is my problem, I was just explaining why I called you obtuse.

I don't think I have waved my degree around to demean posters. Certainly a political science degree is not all that difficult to obtain so it wouldn't be very effective to demean others with.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
It's not religion related so these people are not really important. If you compare this with Charlie Hebdo thread you would think there were at least 100 times more victims in France, even though it was just 4 more deaths. It just reflects how people are driven by media agenda.
It's really sad how many lunatics are walking around owning guns and no one is paying attention to it, as long as they aren't killing in the name of Allah, Budha, Jesus, or whoever.
 
In the US, terrorist groups, even ones affiliated with christianity, will always be called "hate groups," and usually their members will be lone nuts when actually carrying out their terror. Even western countries are never called terrorists or participate in state sponsored terror. The illegal and based on lies invasion of Iraq will never be seen as state sponsored terrorism, even if it has unsettled the mid east and has been heavily aided by torture, and donkey loads of innocent civilians were casualties. Have never seen the US government been called terrorists over illegal genocidal carpet bombing of neutral Cambodia and Laos. Although to be fair, Henry Kissinger did get the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was never considered terrorism when France bombed a Green Peace ship in New Zealand. Never are the CIA or Mossad considered terrorists even though they carry out text book terror activities in other countries. It would be quite easy I think for many to see the CIA as far bigger terrorists and far more encompassing than Hamas, but sorry, that ain´t gonna happen. Was England ever considered "terrorist" for all their military dealings in their colonies?
 
Amar__ said:
It's not religion related so these people are not really important. If you compare this with Charlie Hebdo thread you would think there were at least 100 times more victims in France, even though it was just 4 more deaths. It just reflects how people are driven by media agenda.
It's really sad how many lunatics are walking around owning guns and no one is paying attention to it, as long as they aren't killing in the name of Allah, Budha, Jesus, or whoever.
Click to expand...

Nobby style said:
In the US, terrorist groups, even ones affiliated with christianity, will always be called "hate groups," and usually their members will be lone nuts when actually carrying out their terror. Even western countries are never called terrorists or participate in state sponsored terror. The illegal and based on lies invasion of Iraq will never be seen as state sponsored terrorism, even if it has unsettled the mid east and has been heavily aided by torture, and donkey loads of innocent civilians were casualties. Have never seen the US government been called terrorists over illegal genocidal carpet bombing of neutral Cambodia and Laos. Although to be fair, Henry Kissinger did get the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was never considered terrorism when France bombed a Green Peace ship in New Zealand. Never are the CIA or Mossad considered terrorists even though they carry out text book terror activities in other countries. It would be quite easy I think for many to see the CIA as far bigger terrorists and far more encompassing than Hamas, but sorry, that ain´t gonna happen. Was England ever considered "terrorist" for all their military dealings in their colonies?
Click to expand...

Both erudite, pertinent points, and further drills down on what I was getting at.

There's clear as day duplicity in the West, and with Western media, that we, the general populace, lap up as set in stone truth.
 
Uzz said:
There's clear as day duplicity in the West, and with Western media, that we, the general populace, lap up as set in stone truth.
Click to expand...

Farcical.

Let's compare the two incidents.


Incident 1:

  • Famous people are murdered
  • There is a video of actual murders
  • There are related attacks across a major city
  • These attacks span several days
  • There is a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators
  • The victims are targeted because they exercised one of their civil rights
  • The murderers are known to be Muslim terrorists
  • Their actions can be justified, at least in their opinion, by the holy book they follow. People who defend them can cite chapter and verse
  • There are massive demonstrations around the world condemning the victims for their exercise of a civil right
  • There are famous religious figures who go on television and also condemn the victims
  • This is another in a long line of attacks by Muslim extremists on those criticizing Islam

Incident 2:

  • There are no famous victims
  • The perpetrator cleaned no motivation
  • There are no demonstrations condemning the victims
  • The event did not happen in a major city
  • There is no video of the event
  • There are no major figures condemning the victims on television
  • There is not known to be any other collaborators
  • The incident has not stretched over several days
  • There is no manhunt for the perpetrator



Can you guess why one might get more coverage than the other? Some of these posts are insultingly stupid.
 
Eboue said:
You seriously can't see the difference?
Click to expand...

The main point, around 10 people were killed in both cases because of lunatics, is the same. I don't see anyone giving their condolences in this thread as I remember people giving it in former.
 
Eboue said:
Farcical.

Let's compare the two incidents.


Incident 1:

  • Famous people are murdered
  • There is a video of actual murders
  • There are related attacks across a major city
  • These attacks span several days
  • There is a nationwide manhunt for the perpetrators
  • The victims are targeted because they exercised one of their civil rights
  • The murderers are known to be Muslim terrorists
  • Their actions can be justified, at least in their opinion, by the holy book they follow. People who defend them can cite chapter and verse
  • There are massive demonstrations around the world condemning the victims for their exercise of a civil right
  • There are famous religious figures who go on television and also condemn the victims
  • This is another in a long line of attacks by Muslim extremists on those criticizing Islam

Incident 2:

  • There are no famous victims
  • The perpetrator cleaned no motivation
  • There are no demonstrations condemning the victims
  • The event did not happen in a major city
  • There is no video of the event
  • There are no major figures condemning the victims on television
  • There is not known to be any other collaborators
  • The incident has not stretched over several days
  • There is no manhunt for the perpetrator



Can you guess why one might get more coverage than the other? Some of these posts are insultingly stupid.
Click to expand...
I haven't made reference to incident 1 (CH) in any of my posts, nor have I alluded to it.

Edit: I don't know if you've read any of my posts in this thread, but I've made comments on the Sydney shooter and not the CH shootings.
 
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-west-town-homicide-20150210-story.html

A grandfather was murdered a few weeks ago in Chicago and yet there is no thread on here. It's sickening how the pro Czech Republic media treats cases differently just because of the nationality/religion of the victims. Only 7 more people were killed yet there are 38 more posts about this. It's really sad how no one pays attention to murders unless they happen in the Czech Republic. It really shows the double standards of the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.