Terror Attack in Germany: 12 killed at Christmas Market in Berlin

[Condottiere 40K]

The reason for the delay.

[ioannis76]

One from a reputable source. You know, like the Times (NOT the Sunday times). Breitbart, Express, all crap.
That Welt link is great. But my german understands this differently: not that he stopped it for racial panicking, but mostly about panic in the street.

Hasskommentaren= Hate comments. I think it's rather clear. This guy put people's lives at risk, delaying the hunt for the criminal, in effect protecting him (he was able to get to ITALY, that is cross a large part of Germany, without any problems).
My question to you. Should he be put on trial for helping a terrorist? I believe YES.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Please, enough with the white guilt.

Recognizing that colonialism has had lasting effects /= white guilt.

The Ottoman Empire did some pretty horrible things to all the Balkan peninsula, but when Serbs, Greeks or other Christian populations so much as speak against muslims or islam, you just speak of Islamophobia.

I can't recall ever commenting on relations between Muslims and the inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula.

Social Justice Warriors have absolutely no problem with atrocities, as long as they are not committed by whites.

Well it's a good thing I'm not a SJW then. But it's a fantastic blanket statement nonetheless. I've commented elsewhere that I hope General Gowon is brought to justice, so I think I'm off the hook on that charge.

In fact, for some Drexel Professors, white genocide is even welcome. Racism much?

Just a bit of banter. The salt it has produced seems to be well worth the investment.

The Left is DANGEROUS. It needs to be stopped NOW.

The right, on the other hand, has a spotless record.

[Roma_Victrix]

Recognizing that colonialism has had lasting effects /= white guilt.

Colonialism certainly has had lasting effects, both positive and negative. I'm sure most people in India would agree that the current boundaries of the nation exists as a result of British imperialism, considering how it was politically fractured into kingdoms and sultanates before the East India Company (followed by the British Raj) united the entire subcontinent under one banner, something the Mauryans, Guptas, and even the Mughals had nearly managed to do but never quite succeeded. Then again the United States was formed out of a declaration of independence and open rebellion against British rule by American colonists. For the French, they were pretty much reviled in Haiti, Algeria, and Indochina (i.e. Vietnam) when they were sent packing. Yet you don't see Haitians (many of whom were enslaved) or Vietnamese people (who fought the French during the same generation) who now live in present-day France engaging in suicide bombings, shootings, or massacres with trucks. There's a reason for that, and it has to do with Islamic Jihad/religious tribalism wed and married to the otherwise nationalist sentiments among Algerians and French citizens of Algerian descent.

As for the French in North America, well, French Canada is still around even after it was consumed by the British following the French and Indian War, and the Louisiana Purchase by the US in the early 19th century was a peaceful settlement between the two powers. See! Not all colonialism ended badly (in fact the French had a better relationship and respect for the indigenous Amerindians and Native Americans than the British colonials, arguably). Just had to say all of that, just in case any Frenchie comes in here and thinks I'm picking on them.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Yet you don't see Haitians (many of whom were enslaved) or Vietnamese people (who fought the French during the same generation) who now live in present-day France engaging in suicide bombings, shootings, or massacres with trucks. There's a reason for that, and it has to do with Islamic Jihad/religious tribalism wed and married to the otherwise nationalist sentiments among Algerians and French citizens of Algerian descent.

Exactly, I'm not attributing terror among French Algerians solely to colonialism, it's the specific marriage that I'm addressing. The French occupation of Algeria can simply to added to the self-justification among French Algerian terrorists, it is not necessarily the prime factor.

On an unrelated but topical note - it's worth saying something about the relationship between colonialism and immigration. The right often likes to portray the latter as reparations for the former. This is incorrect - they are directly connected. And yet at the same time the far right likes to harp on about the benefits of colonialism whilst complaining that their precious homogeneous states have disappeared. Why are there so many Algerians in France? Why are there so many Indians and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom? Colonialism. I wish the alt-right would have the intellectual honesty to recognize these are directly connected - yet instead we see yet another attempt to shift the blame onto the left, who apparently decided (even during colonialism) that colonialism was bad and as such we should attempt to atone by letting in those who were wronged. In fact, you can't have a global empire without some global interconnectivity.

[Condottiere 40K]

Modern colonialism didn't have enough time to mature; this is a process that requires centuries of integration.

[The Gurkhan]

Makes you wonder why people in France with SE-Asian (formerly "Indochine") background don't show the same interest to shoot, bomb and drive over French people .... Besides that, the colonization of Algeria had an historical background that Napoleonic Bonapartism is of course not telling the people here.

Is it common for Cham Muslims to do all of the above as payback to their ex-imperial overlords too?

[Muizer]

I only found a brief article I in Bild, which seems to be the source of it all. I'll try to summarise. My apologies if I get some of the legal terminology wrong.

Apparently most states (bundes laender) in Germany have a by-law (regulation) that makes it possible for the Federal Police to request of local police to post a 'wanted for...' message on the local police's facebook page.

Hamburg is one of two states that have not implemented this by-law, so when the request came anyway it had to be declined.

Mr. Steffen has apparently been blocking the implementation for months, together with the head of a bureau for the protection of private data. The reason being the facebook page permits people to leave racist comments in the comments section.

According to Bild, only their (bild's) persueing the issue resulted in an exception being made.

Make of it what you will.

[Dark_Ansem]

I only found a brief article I in Bild, which seems to be the source of it all. I'll try to summarise. My apologies if I get some of the legal terminology wrong.

Apparently most states (bundes laender) in Germany have a by-law (regulation) that makes it possible for the Federal Police to request of local police to post a 'wanted for...' message on the local police's facebook page.

Hamburg is one of two states that have not implemented this by-law, so when the request came anyway it had to be declined.

Mr. Steffen has apparently been blocking the implementation for months, together with the head of a bureau for the protection of private data. The reason being the facebook page permits people to leave racist comments in the comments section.

According to Bild, only their (bild's) persueing the issue resulted in an exception being made.

Make of it what you will.

As a lawyer, it makes sense except the penultimate line, about the blocking. It MAY be possible, however, if the Data Protection Authority is very strict, like home.

[Humble Warrior]

As a lawyer, it makes sense except the penultimate line, about the blocking. It MAY be possible, however, if the Data Protection Authority is very strict, like home.

A very special species of lawyer, it seems, cos I`m still waiting for your evidence debunking the other chap.

[Muizer]

As a lawyer, it makes sense except the penultimate line, about the blocking. It MAY be possible, however, if the Data Protection Authority is very strict, like home.

I suspect 'blocking' may be a misleading term. Seems like Steffen represents the Hamburg executive and , as you may know, a 'verordnung' is an instrument for the executive to turn law into concrete rules and measures. While it is common for lower governments to implement the same rules, that's primarily a matter of expedience. They are free to take their chances with the courts if they want to make their own rules for political reasons or to address special local circumstances.

[Dark_Ansem]

A very special species of lawyer, it seems, cos I`m still waiting for your evidence debunking the other chap.

I don't need to debunk crap because he posted worthless stuff.

[Humble Warrior]

I don't need to debunk crap because he posted worthless stuff.

A strange thing for someone confessing himself to be a Lawyer to say. I would have thought someone like you would prize such things as evidence to debunk any nonsense, since if `nonsense` is represented by evidence then it can`t be seen as nonsense when compared to someone having no evidence.

[Dark_Ansem]

A strange thing for someone confessing himself to be a Lawyer to say. I would have thought someone like you would prize such things as evidence to debunk any nonsense, since if `nonsense` is represented by evidence then it can`t be seen as nonsense when compared to someone having no evidence.

Ah, but you see, according to article 2727 CC and art 115 par 2 CPC, there is no need to provide evidence for known facts.
Since it is a known facts that all your sources, save maybe the Welt, are known bollocks-spreaders and political mouthpieces for known interested parties, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Not to mention, honourable Muizer has provided an original source, translated, with a very different spin on the story from that revolting Breitbart etc.

So yeah, my original statement stands: I don't need to disprove you, because you have submitted nothing. Any judge would consider your evidence as completely invalid. Matter is, any jury (ie the public) will not be able to make this distinction and will take that ridiculously biased and untrustworthy resources like the Gospel.

[athanaric]

Ah, but you see, according to article 2727 CC and art 115 par 2 CPC, there is no need to provide evidence for known facts.

An opinion is not a known fact.

Since it is a known facts that all your sources, save maybe the Welt, are known bollocks-spreaders and political mouthpieces for known interested parties, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

All newspapers make mistakes, all of them occasionally have liars and hacks writing articles.

Not to mention, honourable Muizer has provided an original source, translated, with a very different spin on the story from that revolting Breitbart etc.

And that original source happens to be Bild. The fact that you consider it more reputable, and less revolting, than Breitbart really says it all. You know jack about German media.

[Mithradates]

save maybe the Welt

Maybe? lol Die Welt is a quality newspaper, its not comparable to Das Blöd.

[Dark_Ansem]

Maybe? lol Die Welt is a quality newspaper, its not comparable to Das Blöd.

i bet. Matter is, that lenghty objection made by that guy does not really apply. As is the hysteria calling the police office an ally of terrorists.

[Humble Warrior]

Looks like I`m going to have break this one down to answer it.

Ah, but you see, according to article 2727 CC and art 115 par 2 CPC, there is no need to provide evidence for known facts.

Supply a link, please, to these articles.

However, in your case this does not apply, see below.

Since it is a known facts that all your sources, save maybe the Welt, are known bollocks-spreaders and political mouthpieces for known interested parties, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

This is not a known fact. This is entirely subjective on your part. And in fact, the burden of proof is still on you since you contested the post.

Not to mention, honourable Muizer has provided an original source, translated, with a very different spin on the story from that revolting Breitbart etc.

So evidence is warranted after all then, even if subjective?

So yeah, my original statement stands:

No. Since you contradicted yourself in the previous post.

I don't need to disprove you, because you have submitted nothing. Any judge would consider your evidence as completely invalid.

it`s not me you`re disproving. It was ioannis76`s evidence (the links) you need to disprove, which to date you never did. In fact, you have lazily relied on someone else providing arguable evidence. I was following ioannis76 and you decided to say,

Daily Mail. The opposite is true. Just like the Express.

with NO backing up evidence (ie links).

Matter is, any jury (ie the public) will not be able to make this distinction and will take that ridiculously biased and untrustworthy resources like the Gospel.

Subjective. You have no idea what distinction the jury might be able to make. That does not invalidate the evidence presented.

I suspect, that in a court of Law, my points would be upheld by a Judge.

[Dark_Ansem]

Looks like I`m going to have break this one down to answer it.




Supply a link, please, to these articles.

However, in your case this does not apply, see below.



This is not a known fact. This is entirely subjective on your part. And in fact, the burden of proof is still on you since you contested the post.




So evidence is warranted after all then, even if subjective?



No. Since you contradicted yourself in the previous post.



it`s not me you`re disproving. It was ioannis76`s evidence (the links) you need to disprove, which to date you never did. In fact, you have lazily relied on someone else providing arguable evidence. I was following ioannis76 and you decided to say,



with NO backing up evidence (ie links).


Subjective. You have no idea what distinction the jury might be able to make. That does not invalidate the evidence presented.

I suspect, that in a court of Law, my points would be upheld by a Judge.

It is not. I am not going to provide the links to the articles as you wouldn't be able to understand them, being in non-english. And even in the common law, the burden of proof does not always lie with the contester, but varies according to what is contested. And if you need evidence that the Daily Mail and Daily Express are patented lying mouthpieces of billionaires, nothing I'll say will convince you. I recommend to drop it and saying that we are never going to agree on your interpretation.