General News Thread


According to Wikipedia the population in Germany was 82,175,700 in 2015. One million refugees seems like a small number compared to that. There are probably more children born in Germany each year than refugees arriving. If Germans couldn’t find jobs because of a 1.2% population growth something would be very wrong.


@Quinn i was referring to Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Isreal.


UAE only takes 5,000 fewer than UK. The difference isn’t much. Germany is making everyone in Europe look bad.

Also, expecting people fleeing a tyrannical regime to seek solace in Saudi Arabia (where the punishment for apostacy is death, the punishment for theft is lashes and women aren’t allowed to drive) is not reasonable.


The San Pablito’s fireworks market at Tultepec just exploded. A lot of deads and injured.


For some reason I expected the population to be much less than that, thanks for the information.


Interesting developments:

With the British supreme court shooting down striking Doctors and allowing political parties to ban their members from voting, it seems the European Court is the most reliable. Dreading what happens when we leave the EU.


I’m not talking about the refugees.
I’m talking about the security at the christmas markets. They opted for minimal security (i.e. police presence, concrete blocks, fences, etc.) and the terrorists exploited it.


Christmas markets don’t generally have giant concrete walls built around them with the express intent of stopping speeding lorries. They are innocent, festive places and this is an unprecedented incident.

How much security in public places will ever be enough? Do we want to live in a world where armed police and concrete barriers surround any place we can freely associate? Because I don’t.


You just reminded me of the Cardiff NATO fences (which were not fun)


Remember Nice attack? I sure do.

That’s why they are called soft targets, ideal targets for terrorists.

Well there wasn’t enough in this case, i.e. minimal. Europol warned that attacks with cars and lorries were imminent and they did nothing. Where as other cities in other countries have made improvements to avoid these kind of attacks

And you’re over exaggerating. With minor improvements this could have been prevented. I.e. placement of concrete blocks to stop cars/lorries. Placing vehicles to block cars, etc. Christmas markets aren’t a place for cars I think.

Also, I’m not talking about walls.

BTW: the UK already has tons (quite literally) of these kinds of obstacles or barriers.


Haha I remember all too well. They also made it temporarily illegal to wear a fake beard in Public :smiley:

We don’t live in the world of Minority Report and It is simply impossible to deploy armed police officers and erect concrete barriers at every public gathering. There is always going to be a so-called “soft target” somewhere. Also, not only is it impossible, it’s also undesirable. Do you really want to live in a world where every co coffee shop with outdoor seating, every market, every commercial high street and every public place is under surveillance, with armed guards casting a suspicious eye over proceedings and where oppressive concrete barriers are erected? What does that say about our ability to freely associate? And what does that say about how we react to terrorism?

Something that still inspires me to this day is that after the 7/7 bombings in London, people got up the next day, caught the same number bus route that had been bombed the day before and went to work. Defiance in the face of terrorism is how to win – Compromising your societies’ values is the only way to be truly defeated by it.

I’m not saying security is bad – Some is obviously needed. But you’re playing the blame game here. If you’re looking for someone to blame, blame the killer who went out of his way to do this.

There’s about 4 Christmas markets in my city and none of them have any barriers or armed police.


Soooooo, we got the nice attacks and another attack at a christmas market 2 years ago AND we have intelligence agencies saying there will be an increase in attacks with cars/lorries and you say ‘why bother’.

No one is saying there can be a 100% safety guarantee. No one. But you can take measurements to make it harder for people with bad motives.

Oh please stop with this over exaggerating. [quote=“Quinn, post:2306, topic:3667”]
What does that say about our ability to freely associate?

Again, this already exists over the whole world. Erecting up barriers to stop the flow of traffic, etc. Car free zones, etc. This doesn’t stop you from going there on foot.

So again, you say why bother preventing terrorist attacks?

Yes, not giving in to fear is the right way. No one said it isn’t, but simply ignoring threats and doing nothing about security is foolish.

If you say so. Let’s do nothing about security. If you look at location of the market, it’s a terrorist’s dream come true.
Minor obstacles, without becoming orwelian, would’ve made it a lot harder for the perpetrator(s).

I think this contrasting mentality about security might be nationalistic? Things like bollards to ban cars, etc. during big events are self-evident for other countries.


No, I didn’t say “Why bother”. I said there are a finite amount of resources and that any response has to be proportional, considered and based off of legitimate intelligence. It’s very easy to be retrospectively critical of the security but I don’t think you appreciate the vagueness of these terror alerts. Unless there is intelligence that suggests a very specific threat it can be very difficult to have enough resources to guard every public gathering effectively at times of higher alert. In fact, it’s frankly impossible. The UK has been on alert saying that a terror attack is “highly likely” for about six years. We’ve had 2 deaths that could be attributed to acts of terror - The MP Jo Cox (assassinated by a right wing neo Nazi) and the soldier Lee Rigby (Killed by 2 Islamic extremists). Neither incident was easily predictable.

Lone wolf attacks are incredibly difficult to predict and prevent. Christmas markets are a huge tradition in Germany, and you simply can’t protect every single one of them with armed guards and roadblocks at all times. Being completely free from risk is impossible and I think it’s extremely unfair to put the blame for this incident on anyone other than the perpetrator.

How is that overexaggerating? You said Europol had warned attacks with cars and trucks were “highly likely” but as a general warning, and there wasn’t intelligence to suggest a particular threat at this particular location - so what does that imply? That every public place needs stringent security measures just in case thry turn out to be the likely place? The picture you’ve posted is very telling. I don’t want to see that on every corner. If anything that will make me feel less secure, as it will constantly remind me of terrorism. Most of our exposure to terrorism is through the media. The overwhelming majority of us will not be affected by a terrorist attack in our lives, directly or indirectly. The reason we are fearful is because of that, even though we are statistically more at risk driving in a car to the Christmas market than we are at risk of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack at the Christmas market.


Yes, it’s very easy indeed. Doesn’t mean if it’s easy it’s wrong.
With minimal adjustments, which are very cost-efficient, a lot of suffering could have been spared.

Which there was

No one said every market or city square needs to be guarded. You need to look at probabilities (christmas, amount of people, etc.)

Again 100% security doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to take any security measures.

And that’s your right to think that way.

Possible increase of terror attacks using motorvehicles.
If there’s a bird flu, or whatever, you take measures to make sure it doesn’t spread. A maybe somewhat ridiculous analogy, but the point still stands.

If intelligence agencies tell you that certain risk is high, you to take measures (least intrusive if possible, which e.g. bollards are in my opinion.)

It’s not, it’s only for ‘big’ events and for a limited time. It isn’t even terror related, as I said before, it’s used to make a car free zone.

Again, it’s just a different mentality about security and the (perceived) severity . Doesn’t make one opinion more right than any other.


+1 prayer for the Polish truck driver that tried to stop that sick fuck.


Sad thing is, it’s the only effective way…


What do you guys think, genuine or propaganda?


No matter what you do there’s no such thing as Absolute security. If a spree killer/ terrorist wants to kill people he’ll find a way. You can’t protect every public area. After Paris the France government called for a state of emergency which resulted in a strong police and military presence but even that couldn’t prevent Nice.

Take the picture with the fence for example. Sure it may prevent a terrorist from entering a market, but he can still blow himself up/ drove a car into/ shot at the crowd at the entrance.


You’re right. But maybe the damage would still be less than letting terrorists shoot/bomb in the middle of the crowd…


My guys life is ruined. He fucked up.
Couldnt hold his dick for 3 or 4 hours and jerk off at his momma house?

They gonna hit this guy with all kinda sexual this and that charges.

What a fool, with titties and pussy literally every where he pulls this stunt.