Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm absolutely horrified, but I'm also not surprised. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened again.

Some sources are saying that the killer was a Pakistani "refugee" who's only been in the country for a few months.

I'm just going to bet this won't be the last attempt this year. There are busy Christmas Fairs all over the place here.

 Frazzled wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.

To create fear and anger?

To a third party of no relation? Again, for what purpose?

I think you are on to something there. This attack wasn't a deliberate plot by a terrorist power (ISIL) it was a mad lashing out of anger by a disaffected individual. Apparently the guy was living in a derelict warehouse, so clearly his refugee life in Germany wasn't too happy and successful.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, but why make the attack? At least the old anarchist bombers had a point.

They didn't really.

They did, It didn't work but there was a point to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

 MarsNZ wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I'd let people stay in my house if their old neighbors wanted to decapitate them.

Germany got hit because they're taking refugees, yeah - because if they stop taking refugees, then some truly evil people can keep preying on them. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this attack, but to swing around and blame it on the poor souls trying to escape horrific acts of violence is exactly what those maniacs want you to do.

A typical Anglo-American response. Cause major problems in a region, withdraw then make value judgements on the people stuggling with the consequences of your own actions. The mess that is the middle east is on the US and the UK, now both seem to want to escalate and antagonise Russia. Europe is entirely better off with less influence from either of them.

Interesting view, if completely and mind fethingly wrong. Read a history book before you make such stupid pronouncements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.

I see you have a US flag by your name, could you clarify which native american tribe you have joined and adopted the cultural practices of?

The semi nomadic warrior culture of the Tejas tribe myself. Come spend your money at our casinoes pale faced devil and our enjoy our fine local beverages and native cuisine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.

To create fear and anger?

To a third party of no relation? Again, for what purpose?

I think you are on to something there. This attack wasn't a deliberate plot by a terrorist power (ISIL) it was a mad lashing out of anger by a disaffected individual. Apparently the guy was living in a derelict warehouse, so clearly his refugee life in Germany wasn't too happy and successful.

Terror attacks don't target only those responsible(for one those are often out of reach). Also ISIS is big one on propaganda that _anybody_ who is not one of them is valid target. Ever read their propaganda material? They are methodical in drilling in "there's no innocent bystanders. If you are not one of us you are one of the targets".

And as for purpose. Further divide against christians and muslims. That leads to breeding ground for recruits, money and power for ISIS. Aka furthering their goal.

And only hours after this horrible attack, people (i.e.AFD, who else) try to use Berlin gain momentum..

Using the blood of the victims to write paroles on the walls seems to be common these days..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/berlin-market-attack-suspect-named-23-year-old-asylum-seeker/

Real perp still out there?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.

I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.

Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.

ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.

So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.

But just look at the attacks in France, both Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris attacks had nationals serving as foreign fighters in either Yemen or Syria and known to the authorities. The fact that they were able to commit these acts show a lack of oversight into their activities. The same goes for the Nice attack, the individuals inspiring the attacker were known to the authorities, but yet again managed to plan an attack.

There is no 'but' the French are way too complacent. Yes the French police new of threats, but it was tomorrows job.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A further issue is that you need hard evidence that these people fought there to convict them, something intelligence agencies are frequently unwilling to give up to put these individuals on trial.

Or change the law. In UK law it is illegal to travel to go on jihad, even if you dont actually fight.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

There is a reasonable assumption that there are thousands of Europeans who have or are fighting for IS, yet how many trials against them have you heard of?

Once or twice in the UK. It doesn't make the press much. I get the impression the government want to deradicalise jihadis rather than incarcerate an thus harden them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/21/only-one-in-eight-jihadists-returning-to-uk-is-caught-and-convic/

The article above implies that some are put on trial.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If the reports are true than the Pakistani had requested political asylum, while in the case of the Paris attackers the few non nationals had used fake passports to get in with the help of the nationals. The real terrorists wont apply for anything but will most likely go underground,

The Berlin attacker is a real terrorist, and the fact that he attacked after being in Germany for only a few weeks indicates that he came to do just that. Perhaps he was a lone wolf whose handler is back in Pakistan and is operating without a network.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the real risk is from those radicalized nationals that have the network to get there accomplices in amongst the refugees or can turn desperate refugees. The refugees aren't the problem, it is the inadequate ability to process tens of thousands of people on tiny islands and part of that is because Europe is unwilling to spend more money to do so. The terrorists are part of another problem of illegal activities and if a country of 80 million people can't monitor 1.5 mil extra, I doubt they were adequately monitoring the other 80 mil in the first place.

I suspect it is a lot easier to monitor people who have credit cards, social security numbers, bank accounts phone lines and social media accounts. Also you dont need to monitor the entire population, just the ones you flag as dangerous.
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.

I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.

Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.

ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.

So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.

But just look at the attacks in France, both Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris attacks had nationals serving as foreign fighters in either Yemen or Syria and known to the authorities. The fact that they were able to commit these acts show a lack of oversight into their activities. The same goes for the Nice attack, the individuals inspiring the attacker were known to the authorities, but yet again managed to plan an attack.

There is no 'but' the French are way too complacent. Yes the French police new of threats, but it was tomorrows job.

If I can't say but France because of complacency you can't say but refugees. We have no idea why German authorities failed to identify the attacker beforehand. These flaws of 'complacency' happen in every country at some point, this is the year Germany had several attacks which could mean they had gotten complacent as well, because there weren't many occurrences. It is a valid comparison to make that 1. the police were aware of the terror links and 2. that France took significantly fewer refugees than Germany yet was unable to prevent two attacks perpetrated by European/French nationals.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

A further issue is that you need hard evidence that these people fought there to convict them, something intelligence agencies are frequently unwilling to give up to put these individuals on trial.

Or change the law. In UK law it is illegal to travel to go on jihad, even if you dont actually fight.

Proving that people go on Jihad is the hard part. If someone goes on vacation to Turkey you cant exactly constantly monitor him and to get hard evidence security agencies will have to participate and demonstrate how they gather intel which may or may not be valid in a court of law. They also might not want to provide this intel so as not to compromise other surveillance. Almost all countries have laws against participating in a terrorist organization, bringing it to court successfully is the hard part.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

There is a reasonable assumption that there are thousands of Europeans who have or are fighting for IS, yet how many trials against them have you heard of?

Once or twice in the UK. It doesn't make the press much. I get the impression the government want to deradicalise jihadis rather than incarcerate an thus harden them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/21/only-one-in-eight-jihadists-returning-to-uk-is-caught-and-convic/

The article above implies that some are put on trial.

Exactly, we only see some put on trial because of previously mentioned problems. I take issue with radicalizing those that actively fought for IS or were trained by them, as they are already hardened. European countries try to monitor them to see if they plan to continue at home. Interesting side note, there is the theory in academia that allowing these individuals to go and fight is actually a good thing, because it de-romanticizes the struggle and cause in cases, basically they get it out of their system.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If the reports are true than the Pakistani had requested political asylum, while in the case of the Paris attackers the few non nationals had used fake passports to get in with the help of the nationals. The real terrorists wont apply for anything but will most likely go underground,

The Berlin attacker is a real terrorist, and the fact that he attacked after being in Germany for only a few weeks indicates that he came to do just that. Perhaps he was a lone wolf whose handler is back in Pakistan and is operating without a network.

Just to take in the new facts. They aren't sure if the Pakistani was the driver and the Polish passenger seems to have been shot, so the hijacking story seems to be the accurate one. The fact that the attacker was able to get a firearm is already a failing of the security system without going for the refugee angle.
The Pakistani suspect however has been in touch with German police for minor offences. That seems like a bad MO to come into contact with police beforehand if you're already planning to commit attacks. Based of the story so far and living conditions shown, it is quite possible he was radicalized after entry by being disillusioned by his treatment.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

the real risk is from those radicalized nationals that have the network to get there accomplices in amongst the refugees or can turn desperate refugees. The refugees aren't the problem, it is the inadequate ability to process tens of thousands of people on tiny islands and part of that is because Europe is unwilling to spend more money to do so. The terrorists are part of another problem of illegal activities and if a country of 80 million people can't monitor 1.5 mil extra, I doubt they were adequately monitoring the other 80 mil in the first place.

I suspect it is a lot easier to monitor people who have credit cards, social security numbers, bank accounts phone lines and social media accounts. Also you dont need to monitor the entire population, just the ones you flag as dangerous.
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.

 Orlanth wrote:
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.

Why limit the process to refugees? After all, if someone is traveling to a country for the sole purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack why not just come in as a tourist?

The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.

Why limit the process to refugees? After all, if someone is traveling to a country for the sole purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack why not just come in as a tourist?

Ok guessing here because are not spooks but we can keep it logical.

Tourists need visas, dodgy tourists might not get a visa until vetted. Non-visa country tourists will be on file in their native country, a routine question is asked, possibly at customs. Is this guy on your warning list? If yes detain, if no let them continue.
Tourists and businessmen are covered by existing security arrangements as citizens of the source country. Its also one of the reasons for biometric passports.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.

Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).

To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.

tneva82 wrote:
The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.

May lead back to a larger nest of scumbags. Might not be alone. There gonna run somewhere. But finding them be difficult.
America wanna lend the perp a few week stay at Guantanamo bay... All inclusive interrogation package. ?

 jhe90 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.

May lead back to a larger nest of scumbags. Might not be alone. There gonna run somewhere. But finding them be difficult.
America wanna lend the perp a few week stay at Guantanamo bay... All inclusive interrogation package. ?

Sorry, no can do, Obama closed that place eight years ago, like he promised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plice are sifting through video footage, and have put an appeal out for personal photos and phone images whivh the public has added to. Thios means that there are a lot of anglkes covered by video that wont normally be.

In all likelihood they have images of the driver now, which they can feed into CCTV footage elsewhere to track his movements.

It might appear a little late but the police can tell where he went. Likely having all that info resulted in the release of the guy they did have. "I am not involved", might not cut it with the authorities otherwise and he wasn't held long.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
They did, It didn't work but there was a point to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

There is a difference between having a point and convincing yourself you have a point. "If we commit a highly public act of violence then people will get on board" isn't just an idea that didn't work in the end, it was always a fething stupid that was never going to work.

 sebster wrote:

 ulgurstasta wrote:
They did, It didn't work but there was a point to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed

There is a difference between having a point and convincing yourself you have a point. "If we commit a highly public act of violence then people will get on board" isn't just an idea that didn't work in the end, it was always a fething stupid that was never going to work.

Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.

tneva82 wrote:
Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.

It's the underpants gnome thing.

1) Sow distrust and fear
2) ???
3) Caliphate

The anarchists were the same.

1) Public violence as a form of propaganda
2) ????
3) Anarchist revolution.

Mario wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.

Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).

To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.

You have both swallowed a double helping of missing the point.
It is irrelevant whether terrorists are refugees, or what are the statistics probabilities of being victim of an attack.

Two points are relevant.

1. There has been an influx of about a million refugees into Germany from the middle east.
2. ISIL has been know to have attempted to infiltrate the refugee migration.

Then there is one relevant point to draw from this.

1. The security services therefore need to vet about a million people in a very short space of time and perform a risk assessment.

This is relevant solely because:

1. The security service personnel focus and budget is not unlimited, and this task absorbs a lot of attention.

Consequently there is one concern:

1. The security services are distracted by the influx and it is thus easier than normal to get a terrorist into Germany, from anywhere, and to operate said terrorists mission.


That is all that is being said. Whether people should be pro-refugee, anti-refugee, looking at refugees by crime or terror statistics etc etc is all irrelevant to the topic. Immigration policy is a topic relevant to society and should not be swept under the carpet, but analysis of the terror attack in Berlin raises reasonable concerns in separation to this.
However it would be ignorant to dismiss the influx of refugees as a factor purely because one may be in favour of welcoming immigration for any reason. It would be the case of the truth of overstretch security services due to the scale of immigration being unwanted information, and thus not being 'true'. A factual based approach is better when dealing with the hard reality of terrorism.

For example had the million or so refugees arrived in Germany over the course of five years rather than one the distraction of the German state security may or may not have been lessened and they may or may not have been able to respond in time to negate this threat. We now know that Germany was warned pf imminent attack, and the Germans are not complacent, they are however overworked due to the massive and demographically sudden influx of refugees.

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.

It's the underpants gnome thing.

1) Sow distrust and fear
2) ???
3) Caliphate

The anarchists were the same.

1) Public violence as a form of propaganda
2) ????
3) Anarchist revolution.

They are getting more recruits, money and influence the more distrust and mutual hatred they manage to inspire. That's pretty good success for them.

I have a horrible feeling that there's going to be another attack somewhere in Europe very soon. They'll be inspired by this one.

Yes, it often happens like that, unfortunately. OTOH, the police will be on higher alert guarding places.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, it often happens like that, unfortunately. OTOH, the police will be on higher alert guarding places.

Has ther been often attack quick after another? Apart from trouble of coordinating wouldn't it be more effective to lull people into sense of safety and then boom

 Orlanth wrote:

Mario wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.

Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).

To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.

You have both swallowed a double helping of missing the point.
It is irrelevant whether terrorists are refugees, or what are the statistics probabilities of being victim of an attack.

Two points are relevant.

1. There has been an influx of about a million refugees into Germany from the middle east.
2. ISIL has been know to have attempted to infiltrate the refugee migration.

Then there is one relevant point to draw from this.

1. The security services therefore need to vet about a million people in a very short space of time and perform a risk assessment.

This is relevant solely because:

1. The security service personnel focus and budget is not unlimited, and this task absorbs a lot of attention.

Consequently there is one concern:

1. The security services are distracted by the influx and it is thus easier than normal to get a terrorist into Germany, from anywhere, and to operate said terrorists mission.


That is all that is being said. Whether people should be pro-refugee, anti-refugee, looking at refugees by crime or terror statistics etc etc is all irrelevant to the topic. Immigration policy is a topic relevant to society and should not be swept under the carpet, but analysis of the terror attack in Berlin raises reasonable concerns in separation to this.
However it would be ignorant to dismiss the influx of refugees as a factor purely because one may be in favour of welcoming immigration for any reason. It would be the case of the truth of overstretch security services due to the scale of immigration being unwanted information, and thus not being 'true'. A factual based approach is better when dealing with the hard reality of terrorism.

For example had the million or so refugees arrived in Germany over the course of five years rather than one the distraction of the German state security may or may not have been lessened and they may or may not have been able to respond in time to negate this threat. We now know that Germany was warned pf imminent attack, and the Germans are not complacent, they are however overworked due to the massive and demographically sudden influx of refugees.

On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France. Going of your points.

1. There has been an influx of 1.1 mil refugees into Germany, with only 4 people who actually decided to commit an attack.
2. IS has attempted to infiltrate refugees, but its been over two years since the start of the refugee crisis and Berlin is the first time that they have managed to kill more than one person in Germany. Either the people they tried to send over are grossly incompetent, or more likely they have been able to recruit them here due to living conditions.

The relevant point to draw from this is that the refugee population is not anymore dangerous or even less dangerous than the radicalized nationals, who are even now suspected of hiding the attacker in Berlin, possibly also enabling him acces to a firearm.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them. Let me remind you that neither France or the U.S. has masses of refugees come in as a consequence of the refugee crisis. You can try to handwave this away as complacency, but it is a curious occurrence is it not?

Again, on the contrary, politicians and parties such as those of Wilders in my country or the AfD in Germany would like us to believe that refugees are dangerous murderers, or as you say hiding them. Statistics have to be shown to combat false perceptions of insecurity. Of course immigration and refugee policy should be a separate discussion, but each and every time people want to link immigration or refugees to terrorism out come the statistics to prove those people wrong. If the last few years have shown us anything, it is better to be afraid of your neighbour than the Syrian in the detention center. You are certainly allowed to discuss terrorists posing as refugees as a factor in terrorism, just as I am certainly allowed to demonstrate that terrorists posing as refugees are almost synonymous with regular homicide statistics. Now I would agree with you that it should be looked at as a significant factor if there were dozens or hundreds of attacks, but its been four. Refugees as a whole don't seem to hide any more murderers than the native population, indeed looking at France or the U.S. in recent years its very much the opposite.
The only thing were doing right now is speculating what kind of effect refugees have on the security apparatus. You argue it could be between 1% and 99%, I'm just saying that with the data we have know it seems that if it has a 99% effect they certainly are placing too large of an emphasis on refugees for what we currently know is too little result.

Edit: Just to comment on your CCTV and video post. Germany is very opposed to those kinds of surveillance due to its history, so they have very little CCTV to go off, this is why they arrested the Pakistani, because they got his description from a witness instead of any video evidence.
Edit 2: The new suspect was apparently already known to intelligence agencies as having contacts with radicalized Muslims and trying to by a firearm from a police informant. Can we put this one on complacency too if it turn outs to be him, just like France?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today.

They'd also be alive today if you lot hadn't been mass murdering muslims for decades now.

I missed the part where "you lot" were slaughtering Tunisians.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today.

They'd also be alive today if you lot hadn't been mass murdering muslims for decades now.

Muslims have been mass murdering infidels for centuries if you want to go down the "nuh uh, you started it!" route.

Your statement is also a perfect example of selective application of transitive guilt.

Your statement is also a perfect example of selective application of transitive guilt.

Easysauce using those FIVE DOLLAR WORDS again! yeehah!

 djones520 wrote:

Yes, German troops are in theater. They have those troops in Iraq, 6 recon aircraft, a frigate, and more partaking in operations in the area.

They sent the entire Bundeswehr, eh?