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.

gitzy16v

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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

But they're not all the same race,surely I'm another -ist...hmmmm illegal immigrantion-ist??

RandomName2

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.

b_mac2 was a touch too hostile when replying to your statement, so this ad-hominem whataboutery is forgiveable.

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Well the math would point to people not dying from terrorist attacks in general, taking it to its logical conclusion. And it would be accurate. How many people die from terrorist related activity? Not many, certainly not in Europe, so that would seem to make the issue of who is behind it moot, wouldn't it?

But what if it's not the deaths caused by terrorism that's the big issue? What if terrorism is reflective of something greater than the sum of its parts? Not all nationalists in Northern Ireland were members of the IRA, nor were all Germans members of the Nazi Party in the 1930s, nor all Russians members of the Bolsheviks. But to say that the fact that these groups were in a minority does not mean that they were divorced from the societies within which they emerged.

Islam clearly has... issues. And bombings is just a symptom of a problem with a clash of cultures. I mean, bombings by themselves aren't really a significant thing. Sure all terrorists know that you will never be able to kill all your enemies with bombings or shootings - they are doing it not from a militaristic point of view, but in terms of a war of ideas.

Large unintegrated minorities always have, and always will generate multi-generational problems in their host country. It is hardly exclusive to Islam (we have seen major civil wars generated by colonial minorities in Africa for instance). The fact that Islam has the problem of radical islam in its midst is just an added complexity.

spiralism

To be honest though, Germany was always heavily multicultural to begin with, being home to the second largest immigrant population in the world (some 12 million) so blaming this on the refugee influx is lazy scaremongering at best. Some 3.8 million people in Germany as it was are middle eastern. 5 million identify as muslim, for instance. 1 million came in on the boats.

Every possibility the bad eggs, as it were, were already there. Quite possibily naturalised with a passport to boot, as has been the case with some of the perpetrators in many of these attacks that have occured in the past year

conorhal

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.

You'll have to google translate the page as it's the only legit source I could find for the figure, but with 80% of violent crime is attributed to non-Germans in Berlin (the majority of it by Muslim youths), you know you have a problem with immigration.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/jugendliche-in-berlin-immer-brutaler/814012.html

Richard Hillman

AfD won't win the next election.
Le Pen won't win the next election.
Trump won't win the next election.

But next time......

The fascist left have already started to rig elections in Austria. They are running scared.

Grayson

RandomName2 wrote: »

b_mac2 was a touch too hostile when replying to your statement, so this ad-hominem whataboutery is forgiveable.



Well the math would point to people not dying from terrorist attacks in general, taking it to its logical conclusion. And it would be accurate. How many people die from terrorist related activity? Not many, certainly not in Europe, so that would seem to make the issue of who is behind it moot, wouldn't it?

But what if it's not the deaths caused by terrorism that's the big issue? What if terrorism is reflective of something greater than the sum of its parts? Not all nationalists in Northern Ireland were members of the IRA, nor were all Germans members of the Nazi Party in the 1930s, nor all Russians members of the Bolsheviks. But to say that the fact that these groups were in a minority does not mean that they were divorced from the societies within which they emerged.

Islam clearly has... issues. And bombings is just a symptom of a problem with a clash of cultures. I mean, bombings by themselves aren't really a significant thing. Sure all terrorists know that you will never be able to kill all your enemies with bombings or shootings - they are doing it not from a militaristic point of view, but in terms of a war of ideas.

Large unintegrated minorities always have, and always will generate multi-generational problems in their host country. It is hardly exclusive to Islam (we have seen major civil wars generated by colonial minorities in Africa for instance). The fact that Islam has the problem of radical islam in its midst is just an added complexity.

I agree with you 100% but have a different interpretation. I'm sure muslims feel sympathy for say a group like Hamas. The gaza strip is a horrible place. Muslims are treated horribly and I'm sure most muslims feel some degree of sympathy with the population. There's going to be a sliding scale determining how much sympathy they feel.
It would have been the same in the north. I'd say a lot of Irish Catholics felt sympathy for the nationalists in the north. This would range from just sympathy to wanting to do something political to help (or protest) to actively helping the IRA. A lot of people would have sympathy for the IRA's aims if not with their methods. You'll even see here on boards people saying that the targeting of British soldiers, prison guards etc was warranted and justified.
That doesn't mean that all those people are a threat to the security of the UK.

In the same way the vast majority of muslims aren't a threat to the security of western democracies. The number I read yesterday is that there are 200+ people in Germany who the security forces consider a threat. I don't know how many are islamists (some may be white nationalists or even the old groups like the bader meinhoff) but for arguments sake lets say they are all Islamists. That's still a tiny percentage of the over all numbers. It's wrong to penalise the huge majority for the actions of a tiny minority.

People are strange in their conception of risk and fear. It's the reason that despite crime falling in nearly every western democracy most people think that crime is increasing and they feel less safe. It's not that crime is increasing it's that reporting has become more sensationalist so we fear it more. We are living in the safest countries, in the safest time that has ever existed. That's even with the risk of Islamic terrorism but our fear is at an all time high.

Samaris

@Greyson and RandomName2 - holy crap, an intelligent debate of both sides of the issue without descending into a whirlpool of insanity. Fair play.

b_mac2

Samaris wrote: »

@Greyson and RandomName2 - holy crap, an intelligent debate of both sides of the issue without descending into a whirlpool of insanity. Fair play.

What, by bringing up the Catholic church & IRA over and over again, to some how guilt people in to accepting that Islamic terrorism is just something we have to put up with?

Samaris

I more meant how they could speak coherently and politely to each other without descending into insults whether or not they agree, but okay :P

fly_agaric

I shouldn't post any stuff on this issue or read threads because its all been gone over so many times before but...may as well get it out of my system (again)

Grayson wrote: »

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.

You have your ideologies a bit mixed up.
It might be that you are just doing it deliberately as a debating tactic but it distorts the point you are trying to make.
The ideology underpinning the terrorism you refer to in the UK was Irish republicanism, not Irish catholicism.
The people involved were republicans/nationalists who also happened to be catholics.

I think it would be quite logical to hold Irish republicanism partly responsible for the violence as there was always a strong tradition of
the legitimisation of the use of force to "free" Ireland (as a republican would see it) from the UK. It was easy enough for some people to retool that to argue for terrorism in the UK after the partition of Ireland, particularly as the way in which the NI "statelet" was run was corrupt & provided a good source of grievances. There was definitely a link between the ideology and the violence.

The ideology behind the muslim terrorism in Europe is a strain of Islam.
In a direct analogy with the republicans who legitimised terrorism in the cause of a united Ireland it is a violent
offshoot of Islamic ideas which legitimises terrorism against civilans in the West with various rationalisations (some of which you mention).

Grayson wrote: »

I'm not deflecting. I'm talking about the maths involved. ...

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.

Blaming all muslims in Europe for that violence is absurd + bigotted.
Just trying to carry on as if muslims + Islam has no connection (or connection can be ignored because of the tiny proportion of successful terrorists) is also absurd.

Yet that is what you and many others would seem to argue for with bamboozling logical constructions like comparing terrorists to babies in US getting hold of guns + shooting people by accident (#NotAllToddlers perhaps!:)) or the accidents and human error that can result in death when we fly or drive.

You seem to be trying to abstract all agency away from the terrorists and relegate their acts to a statistical artifact, where it is easier to say should we really do anything different (other than fire fighting work police and intelligence services are hard at every day all over Europe- should that be stopped?).

Even with accidents people try to find contributory factors and change course to minimse risk for the future but that is not fully going on in Europe with regard to Islamic terrorism.

So far it has been decided politically that very sacred precepts (some public freedoms + lax immigration policies) would have to be shattered and price is too high. I get that, even if I disagree. It would be a more honest argument than trying to say Islam and muslims are irrelevant.

Grayson wrote: »

A lot of people would have sympathy for the IRA's aims if not with their methods. You'll even see here on boards people saying that the targeting of British soldiers, prison guards etc was warranted and justified.
That doesn't mean that all those people are a threat to the security of the UK.

Well, actually it can represent a threat (or it did in the case of Ireland during the troubles) and make tackling the problem more difficult. Think "sneaking regarders" is term that used to be used in Ireland. If the number of these sneaking regarders is small the people intent on extreme violent actions who are always a small minority (most normal people do not have that in them at all, muslim or non muslim) will not gain traction. People will also tip off the authorities out of disgust with the potential terrorists, and there will be too few sympathisers to enforce any omerta. However if the number of sneaking regarders is large enough, it provides both a recruitment base of people who might be swayed to violent action +
an ability to ensure potential terrorists can plot away without police being tipped off by their community.

Grayson wrote: »

The number I read yesterday is that there are 200+ people in Germany who the security forces consider a threat.

France has 15k people it is somewhat "worried" about, 1.3 k being "investigated".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/manuel-valls-french-terrorism-pm-warns-15000-people-being-radicalised-as-new-paris-attacks-foiled-a7237696.html

Presume most of these are French, full citizens of EU, so with Schengen (even as it sort of lingers on in a somewhat hobbled form) it must be somewhat of a worry for all EU countries sharing a border with France!

b_mac2

Good news he was caught and no one was hurt.

http://m.dw.com/en/chemnitz-explosives-suspect-apprehended/a-36002417

conorhal

b_mac2 wrote: »

What, by bringing up the Catholic church & IRA over and over again, to some how guilt people in to accepting that Islamic terrorism is just something we have to put up with?

It's the logic of 'two wrongs somehow make a right' that is the basis of his argument, which is to say, his argument is nothing but a load of bovine manure and whataboutery, which is to further say, he has no argument at all.

Grayson

Just to update. They caught the guy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/10/german-police-capture-syrian-man-suspected-of-planning-bomb-attack

They mention that he had TAPT. Here's an interesting article that deals with it's construction and the dangers associated with it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/?page=1


As for the rest I'll reply later when I get some time.

munchkin_utd

the latest is that the terrorist posted on social media that he was stuck in Leipzig and needed somewhere to kip, so a couple of Syrian lads staying in Leipzig saw that and met him downtown and brought him back to their place to stay (as you'd maybe do yourself if living abroad and you heard of someone from Ireland who would otherwise be stuck sleeping rough)

He stayed overnight, but the next evening when he was having a nap, the 2 guys suddenly copped on that he might be, and indeed was the wanted terrorist, so they tied him up with a number of electric extension leads and called the police.
The terrorist tried to bribe the guys to let him go free, but they wouldn't take the cash.
For security reasons the police are reluctant to give too much details on how they found the terrorist in the first place.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/kampf-gegen-den-terror/syrische-fluechtlinge-berichten-albakr-wollte-sich-freikaufen-14475774.html
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/landsleute-ueberwaeltigen-terrorverdaechtigen-syrer-in-leipzig-14474314.html

riffmongous

munchkin_utd wrote: »

the latest is that the terrorist posted on social media that he was stuck in Leipzig and needed somewhere to kip, so a couple of Syrian lads staying in Leipzig saw that and met him downtown and brought him back to their place to stay (as you'd maybe do yourself if living abroad and you heard of someone from Ireland who would otherwise be stuck sleeping rough)

He stayed overnight, but the next evening when he was having a nap, the 2 guys suddenly copped on that he might be, and indeed was the wanted terrorist, so they tied him up with a number of electric extension leads and called the police.
The terrorist tried to bribe the guys to let him go free, but they wouldn't take the cash.
For security reasons the police are reluctant to give too much details on how they found the terrorist in the first place.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/kampf-gegen-den-terror/syrische-fluechtlinge-berichten-albakr-wollte-sich-freikaufen-14475774.html
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/landsleute-ueberwaeltigen-terrorverdaechtigen-syrer-in-leipzig-14474314.html

Here's an english language link for those who don't speak the German

linkie

munchkin_utd

and the latest latest is that since applying for Asylum in Germany, he has nipped back to Turkey twice and now family in Syria are saying he nipped back there for a spin recently too.
This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous !
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/politik/innere-sicherheit-mdr-terrorverdaechtiger-al-bakr-war-laut-familie-in-syrien-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-161012-99-783909
I cant find anything in English, but no doubt the anglophone media will eventually catch up with the story. (in the meantime, google translate is yer only man)

AllGunsBlazing

Sky News reporting that he taken his own life while in police custody.

munchkin_utd

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

Sky News reporting that he taken his own life while in police custody.

yep.
http://www.dw.com/en/chemnitz-terror-suspect-jaber-albakr-found-dead-in-leipzig-jail-cell/a-36028311

questions have to to be asked of the Leipzig police who first couldn't capture him, and then couldn't find him and when some asylum seekers did their job for them and captured the terrorist, now cant keep him alive.

The_Kew_Tour

Better for him to be dead then for him to blow up other people

munchkin_utd

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Better for him to be dead then for him to blow up other people

the problem is that he was over and back to Turkey and Syria in the meantime so keeping him alive would have meant the chance of getting some information on what he was up to, which could save many lives if it stops a potential future attack.

With him dead, he cant talk.