Masked man ‘with sword’ injures several people in Swedish school - reports

a reply to: tony9802

Not sure if its been mentioned but the guy with sword does look 'White' , you can see his neck under the mask as he was posing for photos with children, dressed as 'Darth Vader'.

news.sky.com...

Here is an enlarged image of the shooter's pic:



It is not a "Star Wars" mask, but rather a WWII German helmet and a paintball mask; but the media will now run with "Star Wars" mask. Will make for interesting analyzing to find out what else gets changed/omitted/added to the story.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

You're clearly the person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah, it is a 'German' helmet from WWII. I was thinking of editing my post above but can't be bothered.

Indeed he was white.

My question now is.

When did they take that picture?

He first cut someone down in the yard/entrence.

then he went to a classroom, knocked on the door and cut down the kid who opened the door.

WHEN DID THEY TAKE THE PICTURE??

makes no sense.


We must also take into consideration that the Swedish goverment was to have a crysis meeting at 11 cet+1 regarding the refugee storm.
this happened around 10 cet+1.

They had the first part of the meeting yesterday but did not come up with #e.

Sweden now need loans from the EU/US to cover the costs of the refugees.

Somehow I see a connection/deception.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

Your clearlythe person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

You are allowed to say whatever you want. I am merely pointing out that YOU brought up guns....not me. I made a very relevant reply to you about your comment as well....good thing he didn't use a bomb....yet that doesn't fit your agenda so wasn't replied to.

somevstudents took pictures with him, thinking it was a Halloween thing I read.

Time for Sweden to ban Swords, it's the only way to stop this from happening.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

Your clearlythe person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

You are allowed to say whatever you want. I am merely pointing out that YOU brought up guns....not me. I was posting about the topic prior to your agenda dropping in. I made a very relevant reply to you about your comment as well....good thing he didn't use a bomb....yet that doesn't fit your agenda so wasn't replied to.

ahh i see, in the Vasa revised ATS T&C it must be option "B" : im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments?

Why don't you do your blood pressure a favor and put down the NRA phrase book and try and go a whole day without saying the "agenda" for a change. Because contrary to how you see the world people are allowed to mention the word gun without having to pick sides and participate in your daily American gun debate crusade.

a reply to: Mianeye

It's already banned. You can have a 6 cm blade at most, maybe it's even worse than that in Denmark huh?

This is why I say that Swedes are adult babies that have given up their own sovereignty and are now wardens of the state.

Grown ups unfit to look after themselves in anything but the most rudimentary manner. A society of perpetual children being raised by children, a creed of nihilistic entertainment and ignorance.. raised at the bosom of the state.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.. but democracy is dead. Only the philosopher kings of old could solve such a dilemma.

The alleged perp's Facebook profie seems awfully sparse on activity. the only two bits I can see are a cover & profile photos updated on 10/11/2015, and a link to a song posted 20 hours ago (as of this posting).

I won't post the link here as I am pretty certain that is somewhat frowned upon.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

Your clearlythe person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

You are allowed to say whatever you want. I am merely pointing out that YOU brought up guns....not me. I was posting about the topic prior to your agenda dropping in. I made a very relevant reply to you about your comment as well....good thing he didn't use a bomb....yet that doesn't fit your agenda so wasn't replied to.

ahh i see, in the Vasa revised ATS T&C it must be option "B" : im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments?

Why don't you do your blood pressure a favor and put down the NRA phrase book and try and go a whole day without saying the "agenda" for a change. Because contrary to how you see the world people are allowed to mention the word gun without having to pick sides and participate in your daily American gun debate crusade.

Nothing wrong with my blood pressure at all. Your non-American obsession with bringing guns into a non-gun thread is the issue.

You are perfectly welcome to mention gun or not in whatever thread you like....that would be an American freedom of speech you are using.....

But hey...skew the fact you brought it up all you want.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Wandering scribe has a wonderful set of threads dealing with this universe, try reading them, finne

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

this is indeed wierd.

Mk ultra? with a twist of conspiracy from facebook?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

Your clearlythe person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

You are allowed to say whatever you want. I am merely pointing out that YOU brought up guns....not me. I was posting about the topic prior to your agenda dropping in. I made a very relevant reply to you about your comment as well....good thing he didn't use a bomb....yet that doesn't fit your agenda so wasn't replied to.

ahh i see, in the Vasa revised ATS T&C it must be option "B" : im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments?

Why don't you do your blood pressure a favor and put down the NRA phrase book and try and go a whole day without saying the "agenda" for a change. Because contrary to how you see the world people are allowed to mention the word gun without having to pick sides and participate in your daily American gun debate crusade.

Nothing wrong with my blood pressure at all. Your non-American obsession with bringing guns into a non-gun thread is the issue.

You are perfectly welcome to mention gun or not in whatever thread you like....that would be an American freedom of speech you are using.....

But hey...skew the fact you brought it up all you want.

Nothing wrong with my blood pressure at all. Your non-American obsession with bringing guns into a non-gun thread is the issue.

Ok so now im not allowed to mention the word "gun" in any thread that isnt specifically about guns without having to pick sides with you in an argument about American gun rights..

All these new rules of yours are getting complicated. I wish you would just publish your revised T&C's for this site.

You are perfectly welcome to mention gun or not in whatever thread you like....that would be an American freedom of speech you are using.....

As for freedom of speech i think you'll find The UK and Europe had that well before it was adopted into the American constitution. Not that any of it applies to this site as the owners have the final word on what can or can not be talked about. Are you an owner of ATS?

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

this is indeed wierd.

Mk ultra? with a twist of conspiracy from facebook?

Sorry, came in late, what conspiracy from facebook you mean?

To add to the story another man was arrested as he was riding towards another school wielding an axe!

Also to note the area the attack took place is a poor area with a migrant majority.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And your point of bringing guns into this thread was?

aaand again you feel have to try to try and accuse everyone who mentions guns of having an anti gun agenda and pull them into another one of your pro gun / anti gun debates.

"thank god he didnt have a gun" does not automatically mean "thank god he didnt have a gun because i think the American gun laws are wrong and i think we should have another debate on the subject right now in this unrelated thread.

Its not like you ever even have anything new to say on the subject you just come across as some kind of gun obsessed parrot rather than an owl or whatever your avatar is.

Oh brother....anyone can see what your purpose was for saying that. Agenda driven BS is what you are all about.

So, what was the purpose of YOU bringing guns into this thread again? To point out that you THINK more people would have died? Or that you could use the word GUN in a thread that had nothing to do with them? Just want some clarification so I can understand YOUR reasoning for bringing guns into a non-gun related incident.

Like I said, I could have posted "good thing he didn't use a bomb" but I tend to try to keep the topic on the topic and not run with agendas in other's threads....I do like pointing out others when the do it though.

Yeah case in point mate..

Your clearlythe person who seems hell bent of cramming some kind of agenda down everyone throats all the time. Would you happier if i had said "dam i wish he had an AK47 with an extended ammo drum because less people would have died then?". Or maybe im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments? I guess i must have missed that rule in the T&C's.

You are allowed to say whatever you want. I am merely pointing out that YOU brought up guns....not me. I was posting about the topic prior to your agenda dropping in. I made a very relevant reply to you about your comment as well....good thing he didn't use a bomb....yet that doesn't fit your agenda so wasn't replied to.

ahh i see, in the Vasa revised ATS T&C it must be option "B" : im just not allowed to even mention the word gun at all without having to take sides in one of your obsessive American 2nd amendment type arguments?

Why don't you do your blood pressure a favor and put down the NRA phrase book and try and go a whole day without saying the "agenda" for a change. Because contrary to how you see the world people are allowed to mention the word gun without having to pick sides and participate in your daily American gun debate crusade.

Nothing wrong with my blood pressure at all. Your non-American obsession with bringing guns into a non-gun thread is the issue.

You are perfectly welcome to mention gun or not in whatever thread you like....that would be an American freedom of speech you are using.....

But hey...skew the fact you brought it up all you want.

Nothing wrong with my blood pressure at all. Your non-American obsession with bringing guns into a non-gun thread is the issue.

Ok so now im not allowed to mention the word "gun" in any thread that isnt specifically about guns without having to pick sides with you in an argument about American gun rights..

All these new rules of yours are getting complicated. I wish you would just publish your revised T&C's for this site.

You are perfectly welcome to mention gun or not in whatever thread you like....that would be an American freedom of speech you are using.....

As for freedom of speech i think you'll find The UK and Europe had that well before it was adopted into the American constitution. Not that any of it applies to this site as the owners have the final word on what can or can not be talked about. Are you an owner of ATS?

Nope...no rules I am making at all....like I said....simply pointing out your post bringing guns into the debate, then you getting upset when called out on it. I could have ignored it, but your one liner about a gun possibly causing more death is annoying at best and WAY overplayed, so I wanted to know why, and now I do which is why your odd off topic debate is continuing here.

Glad you have your freedom of speech as well.

a reply to: yeahsurexxx

And now he only has 10 friends listed, whereas there were 11 when I first posted. Not sure which one got dropped as when I viewed them I could only see 10 profiles listed in his friends list even though it listed him as having 11 friends.

People trying to distance themselves from him.



The friend who has since been removed had the same last name and could have been a sibling as he did not appear to have been noticeably older.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: yeahsurexxx

And now he only has 10 friends listed, whereas there were 11 when I first posted. Not sure which one got dropped as when I viewed them I could only see 10 profiles listed in his friends list even though it listed him as having 11 friends.

People trying to distance themselves from him.

I know I would be distancing myself. Nobody wants to have anything to do with a killer. That or the person that dropped him was egging him on and is trying to cover their tracks.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Nope...no rules I am making at all....like I said....simply pointing out your post bringing guns into the debate, then you getting upset when called out on it. I could have ignored it, but your one liner about a gun possibly causing more death is annoying at best and WAY overplayed, so I wanted to know why, and now I do which is why your odd off topic debate is continuing here.

See this clearly shows signs of obsession on the subject by you. There's was no 'debate' until you tried to force me into one by accusing me of an agenda.

I know you just said you are not masking the rules but can i please have your permission anyway to mention the word "gun" in a thread that specifically wasn't written about the subject without you accusing me of an agenda and having to be dragged into one of your American gun debate crusades?