This is long after eye witness reports from British tourists there saying it was deliberate, the Polish company saying the lorry may have been hijacked.
I think this is a failure to report rather than a lack of bias.
An eyewitness may think something is deliberate but they can be often wrong. Whilst in this case it is quite unlikely, a driver having a heart attack of CVA whilst driving may simply be so incapacitated as to be unable to stop a fast moving vehicle. Until the driver has been interviewed (although I do appreciate he fled the scene)and the vehicle examined by the appropriate experts, every thing is still speculation. As to the Polish company saying the lorry may have been hijacked, again, that has still to be proved. Who knows, as yet, if there was a connection between the driver and any of the company employees.
I'm at a loss to explain my thinking in a way that you understand. Repeatedly re-posting the same comments is just more confusing. As I've said, I'm not talking about Africa, The Middle East and the Far East. I was responding to Tony's post, which was about westerners being attacked.
Whether you are a 'lone thinker' is irrelevant. I'm still baffled as to why you'd think that what (some) Muslims want is for other Muslims to suffer.
You haven't explained your bafflement in any way except to repeatedly state you were responding to Tony's post. So let's look at Tony's posts you keep referring to.
No it won't, but if and when normally law abiding Germans unlawfully, but understandably, crack and begin to kick Muslim ass because of this, it plays well to the folks back home, who are told, "see, this is what the West does to our brothers and sisters, come get measured for your suicide vest, or take HGV driving lessons."
In his terms he is describing exactly what I described earlier about ISIS' stated goal of causing conflict between The West ("law abiding Germans") and the many Muslims living peaceably in The West and to use that conflict as a recruiting tool.
Tony wasn't talking about this one attack as you state, he was alluding to the whole campaign of terror in Europe being used as a way of radicalizing disaffected Muslims. Tony never mentioned in those posts "some muslims wanting other muslims to suffer" you did, you brought it up. I responded to you bringing it up by pointing out the many many occasions over the last 20 years or so that specific factions of Islamic fundamentalists have indeed gone out of their way to ensure "other muslims suffer".
Hmmm, I do get the feeling that a lot of people are in total denial about the blindingly obvious reality here, even insisting that on a wholly theoretical level, it might just be an accident, in the same way that the 2nd plane into the twin towers might theoretically just have been.
The thing about terrorists is they normally take full responsibility for their actions as they are doing it. They normally want the whole world to know it was them and why. In the case of those that don't get a chance to make statements, having been killed, we usually hear from some organisation who then claim responsibility. That hasn't happened. Also, I'd expect a much higher death toll if this was deliberate.
It is a fact that it might be an accident, and no theory is required to explain that. Comparing this to the 2nd plane is a bit silly, but before the 2nd plane I'm sure that lots of people thought that the 1st might have been an accident.
The thing about terrorists is they normally take full responsibility for their actions as they are doing it. They normally want the whole world to know it was them and why. In the case of those that don't get a chance to make statements, having been killed, we usually hear from some organisation who then claim responsibility. Also, I'd expect a much higher death toll if this was deliberate.
It is a fact that it might be an accident, and no theory is required to explain that. Comparing this to the 2nd plane is a bit silly, but before the 2nd plane I'm sure that lots of people thought that the 1st might have been an accident.
You haven't explained your bafflement in any way except to repeatedly state you were responding to Tony's post. So let's look at Tony's posts you keep referring to.
Here are Tony's posts:
In his terms he is describing exactly what I described earlier about ISIS' stated goal of causing conflict between The West ("law abiding Germans") and the many Muslims living peaceably in The West and to use that conflict as a recruiting tool.
Tony wasn't talking about this one attack as you state, he was alluding to the whole campaign of terror in Europe being used as a way of radicalizing disaffected Muslims. Tony never mentioned in those posts "some muslims wanting other muslims to suffer" you did, you brought it up. I responded to you bringing it up by pointing out the many many occasions over the last 20 years or so that specific factions of Islamic fundamentalists have indeed gone out of their way to ensure "other muslims suffer".
You're making perfect sense to me. I don't understand why that poster is struggling so much.
planets I'm now baffled as to what you want from me. If you're asking me a question then I'm afraid it has escaped me. What is it you are asking? Just ask me a straightforward question and I'll try to answer. All of this I said, he said, you said, she said.. frankly I'm a bit tired of it.
The thing about terrorists is they normally take full responsibility for their actions as they are doing it. They normally want the whole world to know it was them and why. In the case of those that don't get a chance to make statements, having been killed, we usually hear from some organisation who then claim responsibility. That hasn't happened. Also, I'd expect a much higher death toll if this was deliberate.
It is a fact that it might be an accident, and no theory is required to explain that. Comparing this to the 2nd plane is a bit silly, but before the 2nd plane I'm sure that lots of people thought that the 1st might have been an accident.
Theoretically it might have been a Harry Clarke type accident, but the overwhelming likelihood is that it was deliberate.
The thing about terrorists is they normally take full responsibility for their actions as they are doing it. They normally want the whole world to know it was them and why. In the case of those that don't get a chance to make statements, having been killed, we usually hear from some organisation who then claim responsibility. That hasn't happened. Also, I'd expect a much higher death toll if this was deliberate.
It is a fact that it might be an accident, and no theory is required to explain that. Comparing this to the 2nd plane is a bit silly, but before the 2nd plane I'm sure that lots of people thought that the 1st might have been an accident.
What sort of figure would satisfy you, one to equal those slaughtered in Nice or more?
planets I'm now baffled as to what you want from me. If you're asking me a question then I'm afraid it has escaped me. What is it you are asking? Just ask me a straightforward question and I'll try to answer. All of this I said, he said, you said, she said.. frankly I'm a bit tired of it.
I've explained it really clearly, showing the whole conversation unfurling in my previous post to you, other posters have stated they don't understand why you are struggling to understand.
I must surmise your bafflement is deliberate, the fact you didn't even bother to respond to my post explaining it clearly and just said you're "a bit tired of it" (the bit in bold ) adds weight to that summation.
What sort of figure would satisfy you, one to equal those slaughtered in Nice or more?
Well a) we don't have the final death toll yet, and b) the dynamics might be very different to Nice, with possibly more warning, and more room to dodge out of the way. Who knows.
I don't think the poster can call it on the basis of casualty numbers.
If you've got something to say, francie, then just say it. Looking down your nose at me is rather fruitless.
What's the point in typing when you can't / won't take on board others' posts. So it's easier to type one word answers (which you seem to understand better).
What's the point in typing when you can't / won't take on board others' posts. So it's easier to type one word answers (which you seem to understand better).
BTW who's looking down their nose?
So you thought wheeling out the old *rolleyes* was a good alternative? Okaaay.
Well a) we don't have the final death toll yet, and b) the dynamics might be very different to Nice, with possibly more warning, and more room to dodge out of the way. Who knows.
I don't think the poster can call it on the basis of casualty numbers.
Its owner, Mr Zielinski told local news channel TVN24 today: 'The truck was coming back from Italy and was in Berlin to unload his cargo in the morning.
'I spoke to him around noon and everything was ok. His wife then tried to call him at about 4pm but there was no answer. She couldn't get hold of him.'
I guess the Authorities will be trying to establish whether the passenger was killed before the crash
Comments
An eyewitness may think something is deliberate but they can be often wrong. Whilst in this case it is quite unlikely, a driver having a heart attack of CVA whilst driving may simply be so incapacitated as to be unable to stop a fast moving vehicle. Until the driver has been interviewed (although I do appreciate he fled the scene)and the vehicle examined by the appropriate experts, every thing is still speculation. As to the Polish company saying the lorry may have been hijacked, again, that has still to be proved. Who knows, as yet, if there was a connection between the driver and any of the company employees.
Here is the post I responded to
You haven't explained your bafflement in any way except to repeatedly state you were responding to Tony's post. So let's look at Tony's posts you keep referring to.
Here are Tony's posts:
In his terms he is describing exactly what I described earlier about ISIS' stated goal of causing conflict between The West ("law abiding Germans") and the many Muslims living peaceably in The West and to use that conflict as a recruiting tool.
You then responded with: which missed the actual point of Tony's post. (I assume you meant goad when you said gaud). Tony responded to you with:
" Probably not, but what a publicity coup for them when it does happen, they must love it.". Again alluding to the stirring up conflict to destabilize and radicalize.
Tony wasn't talking about this one attack as you state, he was alluding to the whole campaign of terror in Europe being used as a way of radicalizing disaffected Muslims.
Tony never mentioned in those posts "some muslims wanting other muslims to suffer" you did, you brought it up. I responded to you bringing it up by pointing out the many many occasions over the last 20 years or so that specific factions of Islamic fundamentalists have indeed gone out of their way to ensure "other muslims suffer".
The thing about terrorists is they normally take full responsibility for their actions as they are doing it. They normally want the whole world to know it was them and why. In the case of those that don't get a chance to make statements, having been killed, we usually hear from some organisation who then claim responsibility. That hasn't happened. Also, I'd expect a much higher death toll if this was deliberate.
It is a fact that it might be an accident, and no theory is required to explain that. Comparing this to the 2nd plane is a bit silly, but before the 2nd plane I'm sure that lots of people thought that the 1st might have been an accident.
Google translate is not the best.
Their Government's reaction to terrorist attacks is perplexing, I know they're pacifists but they seem in denial.
*rollseyes*
You're making perfect sense to me. I don't understand why that poster is struggling so much.
Theoretically it might have been a Harry Clarke type accident, but the overwhelming likelihood is that it was deliberate.
If you've got something to say, francie, then just say it. Looking down your nose at me is rather fruitless.
Neither do I.
In a way that the French government definitely isn't.
What sort of figure would satisfy you, one to equal those slaughtered in Nice or more?
I've explained it really clearly, showing the whole conversation unfurling in my previous post to you, other posters have stated they don't understand why you are struggling to understand.
I must surmise your bafflement is deliberate, the fact you didn't even bother to respond to my post explaining it clearly and just said you're "a bit tired of it" (the bit in bold ) adds weight to that summation.
Have a nice evening.
Well a) we don't have the final death toll yet, and b) the dynamics might be very different to Nice, with possibly more warning, and more room to dodge out of the way. Who knows.
I don't think the poster can call it on the basis of casualty numbers.
Not so much 'struggling', as revelling in the chance for argument I suspect.
A rather glib response. I'd be more satisfied if this had never happened, you plonker.
How many people do you think you could kill by driving a truck into a crowd, assuming that you wanted to kill as many people as possible?
What's the point in typing when you can't / won't take on board others' posts. So it's easier to type one word answers (which you seem to understand better).
BTW who's looking down their nose?
So you thought wheeling out the old *rolleyes* was a good alternative? Okaaay.
Fair point.
Actually the old rolleyes has gone, the emoticon used was the "confused" one - hence the question marks over it's head (albeit tiny ones).
Its owner, Mr Zielinski told local news channel TVN24 today: 'The truck was coming back from Italy and was in Berlin to unload his cargo in the morning.
'I spoke to him around noon and everything was ok. His wife then tried to call him at about 4pm but there was no answer. She couldn't get hold of him.'
I guess the Authorities will be trying to establish whether the passenger was killed before the crash
Just one would be enough to make it a deliberate killing so why do you need a higher figure to satisfy you that it was.
Btw don't call me names, it's not my fault you don't understand the meaning of the word 'satisfy' as used in my post..
(provide (someone) with adequate or convincing information or proof about something.
synonyms: convince, persuade, assure, make certain)
The German Police Twitter reports.