Chemnitz: German city on lockdown as armed police investigate 'threat'

JJEire

"Part of a German city is on lockdown during a police operation to stop a suspected terror plot.

Police said they blew open a door as searches continued in Chemnitz but the suspect behind the threat has not been found.

Scores of armed officers evacuated residents and cordoned off large areas of the Fritz Heckert district on Saturday morning.

A spokesperson for Saxony Police said: "We are carrying out a large operation in Chemnitz following suspicion of a planned bomb attack...a person of interest could not be found."

Apparently the suspect is still on the loose? Hope they find them soon. Mad stuff.

tonycascarino

What a surprise. Yet another Syrian ''refugee'' ...Merkel is one massive dope...Hopefully they catch the 'refugee' before anything major happens

Arthur.beaker

Sounds like this could be another 'gas leak'. We really need to take better care when dealing with gas.

Grayson

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Sounds like this could be another 'gas leak'. We really need to take better care when dealing with gas.

What exactly is the point in that post. You're bitching about how one incident was misreported initially as a gas leak. You use that one example, which was corrected as soon as the facts were known, to try and say there's some liberal conspiracy to hide facts from you.

This isn't a conspiracy. You're the paranoid one. The simple fact that this story is being reported as a potential terrorist attack actually disproves your stupid theory.

look at this, the "liberal media" is reporting this as a terrorist threat.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/08/german-police-jaber-albakr-syria-bomb-plot

Look at all those people trying to hide the truth from you.

ChikiChiki

tonycascarino wrote: »

What a surprise. Yet another Syrian ''refugee'' ...Merkel is one massive dope...Hopefully they catch the 'refugee' before anything major happens

When she flung open the doors to uncontrolled immigration anyone with half a brain cell realised the threat that her policy would cause. It was glaringly obvious.

Those fears have been vindicated. She's an absolute fool.

Hande hoche!

The CDU will get a thumping next year, at this rate.

Arthur.beaker

Grayson wrote: »

What exactly is the point in that post. You're bitching about how one incident was misreported initially as a gas leak. You use that one example, which was corrected as soon as the facts were known, to try and say there's some liberal conspiracy to hide facts from you.

This isn't a conspiracy. You're the paranoid one. The simple fact that this story is being reported as a potential terrorist attack actually disproves your stupid theory.

look at this, the "liberal media" is reporting this as a terrorist threat.

Look at all those people trying to hide the truth from you.

Misreported by accident or intentionally?

Same as they manage to misreport ethnicity / nationality / religion.

Same as they over play mental health issues for justification.

They have realised that they can't hide the salient facts (explosion, high police presence, searches etc.) as a result of social media saturation and eye witnesses so they drive the narrative by feeding us drivel about the mental health of the perpetrators.

Wake up, Sheeple.

Arthur.beaker

ChikiChiki wrote: »

When she flung open the doors to uncontrolled immigration anyone with half a brain cell realised the threat that her policy would cause. It was glaringly obvious.

Those fears have been vindicated. She's an absolute fool.

All it takes is 100 or fewer of the 1 million to be bad eggs.

Grayson

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Wake up, Sheeple.

Thank you for winning my argument for me

Arthur.beaker

Grayson wrote: »

Thank you for winning my argument for me

It was clearly a joke. I'll use an appropriate emoji just for you next time.

Grayson

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

All it takes is 100 or fewer of the 1 million to be bad eggs.

I kind of agree with you. However the numbers are just so incredibly small.

Think of it this way, each year since 2001 on average more people are killed by toddlers with guns in the US than by islamic terrorists. Now for some reason people are terrified of islamic terrorists but not of toddlers.
The human brain is strange in the way it quantifies risk. Toddlers are familiar so they're not feared. Refugees and even islam isn't familiar so it's feared.
It's like the way people are scared of bird flu. People get the flu every year. We're used to it. It also kills loads every year. Bird flu however has killed far smaller amounts. But because bird flu gets headlines and because it's unknown it's feared more than regular flu.

Now that's not to say that toddlers with guns, bird flu or refugees should be given a free pass. Obviously we should do whatever we can to decrease the risk of harm from any of them. We should study the flu, make vaccines and kill off birds that are infected. With refugees we should screen them, we should try to make sure they don't feel isolated. We should make sure our anti terrorist police are given the resources they need.

but if we take the figure of 100 in a million (I'm not holding you to that, I know it was just a figure thrown out to make a point) is it worth treating all 999,900 other refugees as potential suspects? We don't do it with toddlers.

Arthur.beaker

Grayson wrote: »

I kind of agree with you. However the numbers are just so incredibly small.

Think of it this way, each year since 2001 on average more people are killed by toddlers with guns in the US than by islamic terrorists. Now for some reason people are terrified of islamic terrorists but not of toddlers.
The human brain is strange in the way it quantifies risk. Toddlers are familiar so they're not feared. Refugees and even islam isn't familiar so it's feared.
It's like the way people are scared of bird flu. People get the flu every year. We're used to it. It also kills loads every year. Bird flu however has killed far smaller amounts. But because bird flu gets headlines and because it's unknown it's feared more than regular flu.

Now that's not to say that toddlers with guns, bird flu or refugees should be given a free pass. Obviously we should do whatever we can to decrease the risk of harm from any of them. We should study the flu, make vaccines and kill off birds that are infected. With refugees we should screen them, we should try to make sure they don't feel isolated. We should make sure our anti terrorist police are given the resources they need.

but if we take the figure of 100 in a million (I'm not holding you to that, I know it was just a figure thrown out to make a point) is it worth treating all 999,900 other refugees as potential suspects? We don't do it with toddlers.

The issue is that this stems from the actions / decisions of one person. The refugees aren't to blame for the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' among them. She is.

b_mac2

Grayson wrote: »

I kind of agree with you. However the numbers are just so incredibly small.

Think of it this way, each year since 2001 on average more people are killed by toddlers with guns in the US than by islamic terrorists. Now for some reason people are terrified of islamic terrorists but not of toddlers.
The human brain is strange in the way it quantifies risk. Toddlers are familiar so they're not feared. Refugees and even islam isn't familiar so it's feared.
It's like the way people are scared of bird flu. People get the flu every year. We're used to it. It also kills loads every year. Bird flu however has killed far smaller amounts. But because bird flu gets headlines and because it's unknown it's feared more than regular flu.

Now that's not to say that toddlers with guns, bird flu or refugees should be given a free pass. Obviously we should do whatever we can to decrease the risk of harm from any of them. We should study the flu, make vaccines and kill off birds that are infected. With refugees we should screen them, we should try to make sure they don't feel isolated. We should make sure our anti terrorist police are given the resources they need.

but if we take the figure of 100 in a million (I'm not holding you to that, I know it was just a figure thrown out to make a point) is it worth treating all 999,900 other refugees as potential suspects? We don't do it with toddlers.

Deflect Deflect Deflect.
Ye will do absolutely anything, but deal with the actual issue here, it's pathetic.
Why don't you start going in to statistics from Islam controlled areas?

How many people in Europe died from terrorist attacks in the last year? Do you think it's an acceptable loss for helping all these "refugees"? Of course you won't give a straight answer to that question though, will you.

skywanderer

Paging all SJW, cleanup required on Aisle 7. Somebody dares to question the politically correct agenda.

Outlaw Pete

Maybe Blue are back on tour again.

Was anybody pictured driving by in their low ride? Or having their hands high when they flew by?

Grayson

b_mac2 wrote: »

Deflect Deflect Deflect.
Ye will do absolutely anything, but, deal with the actual issue here, it's pathetic.
Why don't you start going in to statistics from Islam controlled areas?

How many people in Europe died from terrorist attacks in the last year? Do you think it's an acceptable loss for helping all these "refugees"? Of course you won't give a straight answer to that question though, will you.

I'm not deflecting. I'm talking about the maths involved. Listen, you hate muslims, I get that. I doubt you know many or have ever had a negative interaction with one but for some reason you hate them.

I didn't say that people didn't die from terrorist attacks. I'm saying that the number of muslims committing these crimes is so small that it's irrational to hold the entire population responsible for them.
During the 80's it would have been considered crazy to hold every Irish catholic responsible for the actions of a few. The UK was being attacked by them but no-one said that the problem was with Irish Catholicism. And his was at a point where contraception without prescription was illegal, marital rape was allowed, women needed a man to open a bank account, laundries still operated, divorce was illegal and homosexuality was a criminal offence.
Yet Irish people as a whole, even those living in the UK, were not held collectively responsible for the actions of a few. And we look back at the discrimination that they faced in the 60's and see it as a horrible time.

Why is it different now? A muslim does something bad so muslims are all bad.

I'm not saying that every muslim is a lovely person. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't a few that don't want to commit horrible crimes but I'm not going to hold every muslim responsible for those few. Just like I don't think every Irish Catholic is a terrorist or that every toddler is a potential shooter.

b_mac2

Grayson wrote: »

I'm not deflecting. I'm talking about the maths involved. Listen, you hate muslims, I get that. I doubt you know many or have ever had a negative interaction with one but for some reason you hate them.

I didn't say that people didn't die from terrorist attacks. I'm saying that the number of muslims committing these crimes is so small that it's irrational to hold the entire population responsible for them.
During the 80's it would have been considered crazy to hold every Irish catholic responsible for the actions of a few. The UK was being attacked by them but no-one said that the problem was with Irish Catholicism. And his was at a point where contraception without prescription was illegal, marital rape was allowed, women needed a man to open a bank account, laundries still operated, divorce was illegal and homosexuality was a criminal offence.
Yet Irish people as a whole, even those living in the UK, were not held collectively responsible for the actions of a few. And we look back at the discrimination that they faced in the 60's and see it as a horrible time.

Why is it different now? A muslim does something bad so muslims are all bad.

I'm not saying that every muslim is a lovely person. I'm certainly not saying that there aren't a few that don't want to commit horrible crimes but I'm not going to hold every muslim responsible for those few. Just like I don't think every Irish Catholic is a terrorist or that every toddler is a potential shooter.

Yeah, i didn't think you would answer that question.

Grayson

b_mac2 wrote: »

Yeah, i didn't think you would answer that question.

No, I addressed the issue. You ignored everything I said.

You can ask if allowing in refugees is an acceptable price for allowing refugees in. That's a stupid question. If a 18 year old kills someone in a car accident is that an acceptable price for allowing 18 year olds to drive. If one person dies from an aspirin allergy is that worth allowing people to buy aspirin?

The fact is that we never bring these up. Yes people die and yes it's a tragedy but we don't consider banning aspirin or 18 year olds from driving. And it would be considered sick to point at a death and say that's the price of allowing these to exist.

What I want to know is why this is such a huge issue. The numbers of refugees that have committed a terrorist attack is tiny compared to the overall numbers. Seriously, it's tiny. It's minuscule. Last year you had a greater chance of being killed in a German wings flight than by a German terrorist.

JJEire

Three people have been arrested now, who presumedly had contact with the suspect.

Dr Jakub

Hopefully the police can catch this mentally ill tanned German and show him the proper way to use domestic appliances before there are any more dangerous gas leaks.

My name is URL

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The CDU will get a thumping next year, at this rate.

Merkel has an approval rating of 54% right now, in spite of all that's happening.

That's a higher approval rating than any Irish political leader has. Kenny is currently at around 30% approval.

Do people think FG are about to implode because of that?

Arthur.beaker

My name is URL wrote: »

Merkel has an approval rating of 54% right now, in spite of all that's happening.

That's a higher approval rating than any Irish political leader has. Kenny is currently at around 30% approval.

Do people think FG are about to implode because of that?

Has her party not lost significant share of the vote in 2 recent regional elections?

The_Kew_Tour

These Doctors, Lawyers, Barristers and people who can speak 8 languages seem be mad for bombing

tara73

Arthur.beaker wrote: »

Has her party not lost significant share of the vote in 2 recent regional elections?

yes, that's right, especially in Berlin. She hasn't an approval rating of 54 % atm, it's about 47 and it's going down for the whole year. sure the media is asking the question on and on whether she will be running for president in next years election, she for sure is not giving a definite answer but I don't think she will, because she knows it'll not end very well for her.

Sweetemotion

My name is URL wrote: »

Merkel has an approval rating of 54% right now, in spite of all that's happening.

That's a higher approval rating than any Irish political leader has. Kenny is currently at around 30% approval.

Do people think FG are about to implode because of that?

AFD are at 16% after just 3 years of been formed, If Renua Ireland had that after 3 years.

Then yes I do think FG would implode because of that.

Sweetemotion

We have had Brexit, why is that?

Trump could be president of America, why is that?

Capt'n Midnight

This would have never happened in Karl-Marx-Stadt.

gitzy16v

But but but there more chance being killed by a car,in an aeroplane,crossing the road....nothing to see here....no panic no bother...sure there's sand over there lets put our heads in it,all be grand.

gitzy16v

The sooner we stop making excuses and start questioning we might just get a grip on reality

Sweetemotion

gitzy16v wrote: »

The sooner we stop making excuses and start questioning we might just get a grip on reality

Can't do that. "That's RACIST".

JupiterKid

Merkel is reaping what she sowed on her crazy immigration policy.