Berlin

sceptical guy wrote:

Most Muslims do not accept terrorism. If you stop Muslims from entering the country merely because they are Muslims, you are giving a message that Islam is the enemy, and Muslims in this country and everywhere will see that you are declaring them an enemy.

You are misrepresenting what I said, I said all people from muslim majority countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, ect.) should be restricted, it doesn’t matter if they claim to be muslim, christian or atheist. And this doesn’t affect muslims from non-majority countries (France, India, US, ect). This is very clearly different from what you said.

You are also implying that all muslims put their religion above their nationality. Thist is an extremist view, which itself is an extremist view, one that should not be tolerated. I don’t think a majority of muslims are like this, but I don’t understand why you are making excuses for the ones that do.

SHR. wrote:

Oh and all important government building are protected by pop up bollards that CAN stop a tank.

I’m not sure you’ve seen a tank before, they would just drive over the top of any bollards that are strong enough to stay in place.

SHR. wrote:

Otherwise Downing Street and the White House etc would have been targeted for these sorts of attacks decades ago, similar to Foreign Embassy buildings.

You seem to imply that domestic terrorist have access to tanks?

SHR. wrote:

Daily Mail you suggest, no I don’t read that trash, I read quality broadsheets

I don’t understand why people are so partizan about where they get news from. There is no unbiased new sources, and you can’t discredit information that is being reported on just because of who is reporting it.

Jane wrote:

Parts of France are now no go areas for women, cafes espcially, they are full of men. They dont want women there, and if they do go there, they should be with a man….this is France not Saudi!

I can confirm that these do exist, I went into one by accident last time I was in Marseilles. Athough your depiction of them isn’t completely accurate.

SHR. wrote:

Yes, other than driving tanks and other large military vehicles for 12 years, what do I know about them and the strategic placement of anti tank measures. Doh! You got me there Draculina, another subject on which you are an expert.

Can you explain exactly how these bollads work then? Because my understanding is that a tank can drive over pretty much any object ~1 metre tall. It’s what they’re designed to do (To cross trenches really, but those aren’t common anymore).

SHR. wrote:

Stop pretending this subject is about Berlin… It isn’t and never was.

Well, it is

And just for reference, I didn’t create this thread, Martin deleted the first post by accident. If you don’t believe me then ask him.

SHR. wrote:

I have no intention of explaining anything to you. If I did explain, you would still have an answer. Via google. Got to dash now, got a meeting with an important client in Weatherspoons.

You can mock me all you like. But what you are describing doesn’t seem posible without violating the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), the bollard has to transfer all the kinectic energy in the lorry (or tank in this case) into something else. Where does it go?  The most likely is transferal of kinetic energy into the ground, but I don’t know of any foundation material that would be strong enough to spread the force, concrete would just shatter with such a sudden shock.

Jane wrote:

What is it about then?

The implication I think, is that I created this thread to attack muslims. Which is very clearly nonsense given that I have mentioned having muslims friends in other threads, and such. But SHR doesn’t actually read most of what I post, which is shown by thinking that I was American. Lol.

Jane wrote:

The police are now hunting this man:

Lets hope this is actually the right person this time. I heard that the Berlin police force wasn’t very good, but arresting the wrong person on such a public case is pretty embaressing for them.