Berlin incident Now they suddenly found IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS

a reply to: TrueBrit

As I understand modern Trucks come with built in safety systems, the truck would brake automatically when he detects a car/person/obstacle in front.

IT seems even mandatory for trucks built after 1.1.2015 but since the tech is not trusted (yet) they have a manual override, if the trucks breaks but the driver pushes full throttle it will drive on.

This is the 'internal system'. I heard it from luxury sports car that the engine can be shut down externally in case of theft.

Never heard it used in Trucks, then again I am no expert. (Sort of became half an expert over night ;-)

Muslims should return to there holy land , and then just nuke the lot of them .

Forgive if it's harsh but just watched walking dead box set .

originally posted by: Britguy
So, what they are saying is that this guy was a known person of interest, but they didn't think to pull him in before now or to monitor his movements or contacts. Sounds familiar!
In other words, they left him alone to carry out this act, for political reasons. The families of the victims should be sueing the pants off the government over this.

While the politicians sit behind multiple layers of armed security and fortress living quarters, the rest of us are merely soft targets, to be used as expendable statistics to push agendas. Some things never change!

I've steered clear of this topic for obvious reasons, but I do want to clear up one misconception. One reason that a lot of terrorism suspects are "known to authorities" beforehand is because Muslim communities typically build strong relationships with local and federal law enforcement agencies. This results in numerous programs between our communities and law enforcement, particularly anti-radicalization and anti-terrorism programs.

So when an individual in one of our communities is acting suspiciously or saying the wrong things, it's the other Muslims who typically will report them to law enforcement. Then law enforcement typically looks into that individual (covertly or overtly) to determine if the person has committed any crimes, had ties to nefarious contacts, etc. This can include being detained, working with informants, background checks, and more. But if the "suspicious" person isn't found to be in violation of anything, law enforcement will simply keep an eye on them.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

When we get people saying that Muslims should be nuked, i can fully appreciate why you avoid these topics but thank you very much for that little bit of information, i have often wondered where the info comes from.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

nudge nudge, hint hint. He went that away... too funny

Follow the bread crumbs to the witches ginger bread house

No...

follow the yellow brick road!

I hate these threads, in the early stages everyones on it like flies on s***. But its impossible to tell rumor from forensics at this point, its too early.

Later when they figure it out and tell us, everyone is like moved on to the next 'breaking' event.

originally posted by: Denoli
Muslims should return to there holy land , and then just nuke the lot of them .

Forgive if it's harsh but just watched walking dead box set .

Yeah let's nuke a whole bunch of innocent men, woman, and children because we b scurred!!1!

Home of the brave. Land of the free.

.... lol nah. Not anymore. The fact that people advocate nuclear war just shows the ignorance of some.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CulturalResilience

The meaningful shortcoming is yours. I do love hearing you ask it over and over. What was the question again?

"Have you now or have you ever had an opinion you confused with the facts?"

Your answer, don't confuse me with the facts.

I have never confused an opinion with a fact, and I have not given you that answer or any other for that matter

On top of your English comprehension aptitude, this reply leads me to question your sanity and reasoning.

originally posted by: JakeR777
a reply to: CulturalResilience

2 different questions with 2 different implications. But if you say so.

ANYWAYS This event and background feels like deja vu. WHY is it that every recent perpetrator in recent attacks have been under government surveillance and had even BEEN DETAINED BEFORE. It just seems like a slap in the face that their solution to failing to recognize and stop the attack with all the surveillance they have IS MORE SERVEILLANCE.

I don't say that this is not a false flag, as you will have no doubt noticed I have been attempting to establish if that particular commenter has anything other than a blinkered biased to support his standpoint. You will also have noticed that the answer to that question is no.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

this reply leads me to question your sanity and reasoning.

Likewise... who passes judgment before the facts are in? Who calls people crazy and unreasonable for refusing to jump to conclusions?

a reply to: intrptr


I have only asked if you have any evidence, beyond the biased you have demonstrated, to support your standpoint. That is in no way asking you to jump to any conclusions. Once again you seem to have misinterpreted a meaning, questioning a persons reason is completely different from inferring they are unreasonable.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

You will also have noticed that the answer to that question is no.

Actually it's a slight yes. The OP did his best to convey that train of thoughts, which combines 3 or 4 recent threads (the issues in Germany over the last months) easily rehashed with a quick glance on his threads.

The summary of 'incompetent miracles' is quite staggering.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: CulturalResilience

You will also have noticed that the answer to that question is no.

Actually it's a slight yes. The OP did his best to convey that train of thoughts, which combines 3 or 4 recent threads (the issues in Germany over the last months) easily rehashed with a quick glance on his threads.

The summary of 'incompetent miracles' is quite staggering.

I don't discount any of that. I agree that the poster produced what could be considered anecdotal evidence. I have been attempting to establish if the poster is able to present factual evidence so as to demonstrate some validity rather than a the clear demonstration of an intransigent bias.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Sorry to ruin your muzsplaining and terror enabling.

This Muslim terrorist was known to authorities becuase he burned down a school in Italy and served a four a year prison sentence.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Bias? It's actual and boring work to create a comprehensive overview others get paid good bucks for. Just saying. Also, in light of 9/11 IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS could be considered evidence for a false flag alone.
And there's more - that's what we call Bull#-Bingo. Maybe you didn't see that or you don't understand the scope of things, but the BfV is already in the midst of the NSU (state terror) scandal. This surely doesn't bode well.

I smell something fishy but dont worry its kosher

a reply to: khnum

Where Islam apologists gather, antisemitism inevitably follows.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Bias? It's actual and boring work to create a comprehensive overview others get paid good bucks for. Just saying. Also, in light of 9/11 IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS could be considered evidence for a false flag alone.
And there's more - that's what we call Bull#-Bingo. Maybe you didn't see that or you don't understand the scope of things, but the BfV is already in the midst of the NSU (state terror) scandal. This surely doesn't bode well.

Have you been following what could be referred to as the conversation between me and the commenter?

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Starting with the Port Arthur massacre in Australia I can name about 10 probable Mossad false flags,btw I am anti-Rothschild zionist not anti-semetic.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Learn how to read. My post clearly says:

One reason that a lot of terrorism suspects are "known to authorities" beforehand is

I thought anyone reading this forum would understand that saying "one reason" implies there are other reasons as well. And that "a lot of" is not the same as "all" or even "most". SMH

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: TrueBrit

As I understand modern Trucks come with built in safety systems, the truck would brake automatically when he detects a car/person/obstacle in front.

IT seems even mandatory for trucks built after 1.1.2015 but since the tech is not trusted (yet) they have a manual override, if the trucks breaks but the driver pushes full throttle it will drive on.

This is the 'internal system'. I heard it from luxury sports car that the engine can be shut down externally in case of theft.

Never heard it used in Trucks, then again I am no expert. (Sort of became half an expert over night ;-)

Almost every GPS unit (not navigation) have possibility to switch electricity to engine off remotely if speed is less then 20KM/h. But in our cars it is not connected because of car warranty.