Automatic Brakes Stopped Berlin Truck During Christmas Market Attack (dw.com) 164
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Deutsche Welle: The truck that plowed into a Berlin Christmas market, killing 12, came to a halt due an automatic braking system, according to German media reports on Wednesday. The automatic braking system potentially saved the lives of many more people in the recent terrorist attack. An investigation by newspaper "Suddeutsche Zeitung" and broadcasters "NDR" and "WDR" found the Scania R 450 semi-trailer stopped after between 70 and 80 meters (250 feet). The system was reportedly engaged after sensing a collision. Previous reports speculated that the truck had driven erratically and stopped due to the heroic actions of the truck's Polish driver, who lay fatally wounded in the cabin. In 2012 the European Union adopted regulations requiring all new trucks exceeding 3,500 kilograms be fitted with advanced emergency braking systems. The systems initially alert drivers and then take evasive action. The regulation was adopted to reduce the number of rear end collisions by trucks.
Double edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
Could have stopped. Should have stopped.... Technology is evolving fast.
If this technologically non-savvy terrorist had no idea about automated braking, just think about technologically savvy terrorist who will be able to program automatic trucks to ignore collision by hacking certain sensors. We are talking about automatic road killing robot.
How would you stop such autonomous cargo truck with no driver to shoot at?
Re: (Score:1)
Kill the tires, kill the engine, kill the energy supply (gas tank or batteries).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He doesn't believe in horses. They're leftist propaganda.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is not a duck. Because all ducks are peaceful. It is probably Putin or alt-right, and don't underestimate fake news!
Re: (Score:2)
Ducks are notorious rapists.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it. That old cliche should really be updated to "if it walks like a duck, and rapes like a duck, ..."
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately you have to be kind of an idiot to want to murder people like this anyway.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you stop such autonomous cargo truck with no driver to shoot at?
Fortunately you have to be kind of an idiot to want to murder people like this anyway.
That fact doesn't lessen the threat; the world is filled with idiots, after all.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but if you strive to make the world idiot-proof it sucks for everyone.
We shouldn't react to events like this by compounding the loss of life with a loss of rights, loss of dignity and loss of humanity. Most Germans can still remember what that was like.
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't react to events like this by compounding the loss of life with a loss of rights, loss of dignity and loss of humanity.
You should repeat that quote the next time a shooter goes crazy and the vocal minority calls for gun bans.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no call for gun BANS. Only better gun control.
This is absolutely wrong. Not only do people call for completely banning specific guns (like the AR-15), plenty of people call for banning guns in private hands entirely.
Why do you assume TVs are insured? They simply aren't, for most people. Moreover, I can't be sure that the robber only wants the TV, and in any case, they have no right to be in my house. If they refuse to leave when told to, I have every right to use force to make them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but if you strive to make the world idiot-proof it sucks for everyone.
There's a difference between printing "do not eat" on the moisture-absorbent insert in foods, and making heavy equipment operate safely.
Also, anti-terrorist measures that only stop dumb terrorists are useful.. If we're going to make rational tradeoffs, we shoudl consider that. (Of course, we'll never make rational trade-offs, we'll get increased inconvenience from the TSA because terrorists haven't gone after US airplanes for 10 years now).
Re: (Score:2)
We shouldn't react to events like this by compounding the loss of life with a loss of rights, loss of dignity and loss of humanity. Most Germans can still remember what that was like.
Alas, they can not. The ones we have left (after the murder of the elderly, cripples and the certifiably insane by their countrymen) were not subjected to the bulk of the loss of dignity and humanity. A selection of them, indeed, were in part responsible for it. And let's face it, even the Jews (who can remember what it was like) aren't immune to falling into the trap of doing it to other people, or should I say another people? And indeed, you will find strong support from Germans for the laws we imposed up
terrorism and intelligence (Score:2, Interesting)
Fortunately you have to be kind of an idiot to want to murder people like this anyway.
There's some evidence to suggest otherwise:
Which academic pursuit has been the most prevalent among Islamic jihadis?
It’s not the oddest question to come up at a dinner party, especially at the University of Oxford. But when it comes up between a Middle East expert and a sociologist, idle talk yields to a quest for data. That’s how political scientist Steffen Hertog and sociology professor Diego Gambetta soon found themselves poring through records of 404 people from 30 countries engaged in political violence between 2005 and 2007. Their answer? Engineering.
Of the 178 whose academic focus could be ascertained, 44 percent of those were engineers—most of them in electrical engineering, civil engineering, and computer studies. The next-largest group, Islamic studies, had fewer than half as many, at 19 percent [see table below, ”Fields of Study”].
* http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/extremist-engineers
Re: (Score:2)
The idea sounds like a good (for certain values of "good") starting point for an assassination technique. Say, link your (software) attack system to a Raspberry-Pi running an ANPR system with a commodity camera, and embed the hardware in a box of thermite (try reading this slagged SD-card!) Then truck drives normally until the ANPR sees one of th Ministerial fleet of vehicles, when it goes all kill-bot.
Sounds like the act
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Interesting)
Need to keep ahead of them by making mandatory Automatic self-testing with Error memory until serviced by a certified shop And monitoring of line pressure and devices, at least at engine start, periodically when idling or running at low speed, when initially accelerating from a full stop, And Failsafe Interlocks to the automatic braking systems To prevent applying power after an error is detected in the braking system.
If the braking system fails to self-test, or Auto-braking has engaged but accelerator still pushed, then the engine computer will throttle the engine down to Zero and if accelerating after 1 second, kill drive power.
Re: (Score:2)
If the auto break is on, it does not matter if the accelerator is pushed.
The break is always stronger than the engine and will kill the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't the parking brake do that? People driving around with the Ebrake on happens quite often.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the parking break is designed to hold a resting car, not to stop a moving car. Hence the name, I would guess?
Re: (Score:3)
Most brake's can't stop the engine. That's why modern engine's have engine-brake interlocks. Engine power is reduced when the brake pedal is pushed.
I had an old pickup with a stuck gas-pedal. The brakes were completely unable to stop the engine. Luckily, it was in winter, and the truck was on ice. The truck went forward until the front tires hit pavement, and then I had time to experiment. It was a rear-wheel drive vehicle and the rear set of brakes were unable to stop the rear-wheels from spinning.
Re: (Score:2)
brake's
Look, just remove the ' key from your keyboard, for at least a year. That will make the world, ever so slightly, a better place.
For passenger cars and light trucks, the brakes have far more power than the engine if they're in good condition. Heavy trucks are a different story, though, as they have some very tall gears, and stopping on a slope can be challenging to begin with when loaded.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry boss, despite your arrogance and confidence, your more wrong than right. I have done SAE brake certifications for off and on road vehicles. Most vehicles probably could not be brought to a complete stop from speed if they engine was at full power by brakes alone. The 2 problem are: 1) the brakes do not have sufficient cooling, the engine/transmission have much better cooling, and thus can produce power for a longer time period. Most brakes cannot sustain high power for more than a minute before fading, and will eventually fail all together. Also (for most vehicles) the brakes do not have the same mechanical advantage, since they are at the wheels, and do not have a gear reduction. They apply a fixed maximum torque, at 60 MPH my pickups brakes could produce 800 HP in braking force, but at 10 MPH that would be closer to 100 HP. My trucks engine can easily produce 250 HP at the rear wheels, down to about 5 mph, due to it having real low gearing for towing. If in my pickup the brakes came on full at 70 mph at full throttle, it would take a fairly long stop to get down to 15- 25 mph or so before they would equallize, until the brakes faded and failed, then It would accelerate again. This balance will vary widely based on the power and gearing of the vehicle, but most cars would be pretty iffy on if they could be brought to a complete stop, almost all would slow to fairly slow speed though. Of course at these low speeds, it wouldn't take much outside force to stop the vehicle.
Re:Double edged sword (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's good to know that in the event of a zombie apocalypse Europe will be completely screwed because none of their large vehicles will be able to plow through the zombie hordes or parked cars.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
How would you stop such autonomous cargo truck with no driver to shoot at?
Well, how about not letting Islamic hordes of hoodlums into your country in the first place?
It also takes too long to manually process all the asylum applications. Germany needs an AI system to flag those who obviously have no grounds for seeking asylum. These could be expedited, with a human making the final judgement. Any asylum seeker found guilty of committing a violent crime should be booted immediately. A group of Islamic asylum seekers set a homeless man on fire in a Berlin subway station . . .
Re:Double edged sword (Score:4, Interesting)
1. There have not been "hoards" of Muslim hoodlums entering Germany. Most of the refugees are actually fleeing Islamic terrorists.
2. The guy had his asylum application processed in good time. The problem was they could not deport him because his country would not take him back.
3. The falling is that the security services knew about him but didn't stop him.
This does not warrant your extreme, xenophobic reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
1. There have not been "hoards" of Muslim hoodlums entering Germany. Most of the refugees are actually fleeing Islamic terrorists.
About half are from Syria most of those people fleeing democide inflicted by a secular government.
The guy had his asylum application processed in good time. The problem was they could not deport him because his country would not take him back.
Nobody cares about lame excuses.
The falling is that the security services knew about him but didn't stop him.
See above. Germany is at the very least to blame for not being prepared, putting out an invite that got thousands killed plus above "won't take him back" nonsense. You can structure migration in a way where these problems are mitigated or you can just take a bunch of half-assed measures and act surprised when it blows up in your face.
This does not warrant your extreme, xenophobic reaction.
Back in the real world when all you see when
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot.
Fleeing islamic terrorism, might it be IS, or ISIS, or Sadad is the same as fleeing for economic reasons.
No food is no food, regardless if it gets burned, confiscated, stolen, or did not grow in the first place. And it does not really matter if you get bombed by ISIS or Sadam or the Russians ...
The Islam does not demand murdering 'non believers'. It demands spreading gods word to heathens, just like the catholics do. And: neither christians nor jews are heathens or non believers, idiot.
They
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget AGAIN to mention that jews and Christians ARE BELIEVERS, because they are decendants if Abraham and believe in the same god, facepalm.
Re: (Score:2)
While I wouldn't defend the Koran and agree it is somewhat worse then the Bible, in practical terms I'm more often affected by Christians demanding their values be enforced in law.
The only real difference is that Christians have largely realised that legal means and working within democracy is more effective than murder and terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
My current estimate is that Christianity cost us about 1500 years of technical progress, by shutting down hard the only culture that had a propensity for innovation (the Chinese had a few minor inventions but were otherwise stagnant, innovation in the Indic world was completely dead, Middle East coasted as a province of the Graeco-Roman world and briefly attempted to continue (11th century) but the mullahs quickly put a stop to that, others weren't even a blip), we still haven't fully recovered from their i
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think forcibly kicking someone out of a plane with a parachute over another country is a good idea?
You would need to violate their airspace. It would breach human rights laws in the EU. That country might retaliate. Even if you were enough of a dick to actually try it, it wouldn't work.
Anyway, if you want people to leave, a lot of natives are leaving the UK now due to Brexit and xenophobia. We are screwed anyway, robots will take those jobs if immigrants don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Just returning law-breakers to their country of origin. Violating their air space? Who cares? That's what a disposable POS aircraft is for. Remote controlled, let them shoot it down - AFTER telling them who's on it.
I doubt Somalia is in a position to "retaliate." What re they going to do - hijack more boats? Besides, the US has shown that you don't have to give a shit about laws if you call it "extraordinary rendition", since the actual breaking of the law isn't in the EU or the US if you just
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU, human rights prevent sending someone to Somalia without some guarantee that they will be safe. Otherwise it would be as good a pulling the trigger ourselves.
If the Somali government won't have him, we have the deal with him. Could try to lock him up, but it's unlikely to be legal. Monitoring, as they did, is the only real option, they just didn't do it properly.
Still, I'll take that any day over the cowardly alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you aren't IN the EU any more when you're kicking them out of the airplane - you're over Somalia and they are the ones with jurisdiction - jurisdiction that they are welcome to enforce against their own nationals when they are parachuted in. EU law doesn't apply in other country's sovereign space.
Plus, from an ethical point of view, why shouldn't people who enter illegally be immediately turned around at the border? They are the ones who had the means to escape from their country, so it's more
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you aren't IN the EU any more when you're kicking them out of the airplane
It doesn't matter, if you are an EU citizen and you put them on a plane in the EU and planned the whole thing in the EU then you are going to be prosecuted, possibly for murder.
Believe me, governments have tried all these arguments.
Plus, from an ethical point of view, why shouldn't people who enter illegally be immediately turned around at the border?
Well, aside from showing some compassion to those in genuine need, the border is always with some other jurisdiction. If they come by sea and you stop them landing, they either drown or go to some other country. In the EU there is a good chance that other country will also be in
Re: (Score:2)
So what - planning to do something that isn't illegal isn't a crime, especially if it's not done in the country.
And good luck getting a conviction if it's the government doing it, same as the EU sh*t its' pants when countries started putting up fences. The Schengen open border deal is dying, and there are provisions in the EU charter to allow individual member states to ignore it.
Those in genuine need won't be the ones showing up at the border - they're the ones with the means to bribe people. By definit
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since you're not planning on them dying.
Also, only a fool thinks that the current situation can continue for more than another 5-10 years. India and Africa by themselves will have between 45 and 60% of the world's population in 50 years, and everything is going to go down the crapper well before then. African birth rates are now stuck at 4.5 per woman, despite increases in education that were supposed to lower it. Still better than 6 per, but not really expected to drop any more because of socia
Re:You gave Trump's plan (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't.
But hey, fake news is only fake when we disagree with it, right.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, he only called the one coming to America criminals, or do you think they not only fake the news but fake the trump giving the speech as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you must be Trump's campagin manager. Thanks for clarifying that trump didn't actually say all the things he said and that criminal means something different in this context.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a lot of reaso
Re:You gave Trump's plan (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is: the Bible has a New Testament. It's primary message? Scripture can be hard to interpret, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. That Jesus guy just wouldn't shut up about this: turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc., etc.
The Koran desperately needs its own New Testament, just as Islam desperately needs it's own Reformation. That can only happen from within, of course, but we should recogni
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is: the Bible has a New Testament. It's primary message? Scripture can be hard to interpret, so if you think it's telling you to hurt someone, that's how you know you're reading it wrong. That Jesus guy just wouldn't shut up about this: turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc., etc.
The Koran desperately needs its own New Testament, just as Islam desperately needs it's own Reformation. That can only happen from within, of course, but we should recognize it for what it is.
Just in 2016 [thereligionofpeace.com] there were 2455 Islamic attacks in 60 countries, in which 21152 people were killed and 26499 injured. If that number surprises you, it's because the western press doesn't care to report attacks without western victims. Your false equivalence is obvious and foolish.
If all those rules of the OT aren't important, then why did the Council of Nicaea and subsequent generations of scholars and clergy leave them in there? The OT is still part of the Bible, so by choosing not to follow those rules you are proving my point that both religions pick and choose (and different followers of the religions choose differently than others) which to follow. As for Jesus saying turn the other cheek, you are correct. But simply read the Wikipedia page on the Bible and Violence and you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There already is legal precedent: 8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens [cornell.edu] clause f Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. If you don't believe in western values don't come to the west. Show us a democratic co
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't know democratic countries where the majourity is Muslim, you probably should ask google.
Or ask yourself if you still have the right to remain in your country if you ask such questions from immigrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Or ask yourself if you still have the right to remain in your country if you ask such questions from immigrants.
Hah, we can't even secure our borders you silly man. Fear not! Germany is slowly catching up to America, once you quadruple the immigrants in your country you can proudly lecture others. I'm looking forward to the New Years event and the press suppressions of the mass gropings.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has no borders to secure.
We are surrounded by Schengen states.
Regarding the groping we will see how tha goes this time.
The painfull truth is not that it happened, but that:
a) so many veilants got away with it
b) basically no german man stood up and beat them up
c) and most women silently endured it as well
The police only got 'informed' days later when more and more women realized: oh, I was not the only one!
And after all, as it most obviously was some kind of organized action, we still have no clue ab
Re: (Score:2)
Show us a democratic country that is majority Muslim.
All of these are either Islamic democracies or Islamic republics:
Iraq
Iran
Egypt
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Tunisia
Lebanon
Morocco
Turkey
Kuwait
Gambia
Mauritania
Now, to be fair they do have different degrees of freedom, but they all qualify as democratic governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these are democratic like Russia is democratic or even North Korea. All candidates in Iran have be approved by the ruling Guardian Council a group of right leaning clerics.
no double edged sword (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What "cheap" drone can haul 500kg?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take much to make a regular aircraft into a pilotless drone. All it requires is a parachute. This Mig flew into NATO airspace with no pilot. [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am unaware of any drone that can lift 500kg.. that is a lot of explosive. Maybe 500g.....
We use them all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You probably meant "any cheap drone", which is true enough.
Re: Double edged sword (Score:2)
I'm fine with a robot that automatically kills roads; surely, this can only hasten the arrival teleportation as a practical method of transit.
Re: (Score:3)
Could have stopped. Should have stopped.... Technology is evolving fast.
If this technologically non-savvy terrorist had no idea about automated braking, just think about technologically savvy terrorist who will be able to program automatic trucks to ignore collision by hacking certain sensors. We are talking about automatic road killing robot.
How would you stop such autonomous cargo truck with no driver to shoot at?
You don't make these systems available remotely. In order for a terrorist to mod the controls, they would need physical access to the truck - and you would still have protection, for example, if you had a system with a burned in checksum that refused to operate if it detected modifications to the firmware. With traditional drivers, all they have to do is slit the brake lines or tranquillize the driver... And automated driving also takes misinterpretation mistakes, aggressive driving, and sleepiness out of t
Re: (Score:3)
Slitting the break lines does not work in a truck.
Trucks have a breaking system that uses pressured air to keep the breaks open.
If you cut a line, the air pressure vanishes imediatly and the breaks close and the truck stops.
I guess you have heared the puffs and whistles when a truck starts moving, this is the air preassure opening the breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Slitting the break lines does not work in a truck.
Trucks have a breaking system that uses pressured air to keep the breaks open.
If you cut a line, the air pressure vanishes imediatly and the breaks close and the truck stops.
I guess you have heared the puffs and whistles when a truck starts moving, this is the air preassure opening the breaks.
Ahh, thank you. I'm afraid I'm only passingly familiar with vehicles, but it's excellent to see someone thought of that. But then, surely somebody could tamper with the break pedal, or in some other manner circumvent the truck's ability to stop? If nothing else, incapacitating the driver would still be an option, and an autonomous truck would still have the benefits of the pressurized braking system, for example. This scenario would, at worst, have turned out the same way, and potentially could have been av
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you have heared the puffs and whistles when a truck starts moving, this is the air preassure opening the breaks.
Ahh, thank you. I'm afraid I'm only passingly familiar with vehicles, but it's excellent to see someone thought of that.
George Westinghouse [wikipedia.org] thought of it in 1868. The idea (besides answering the question of how to actually control braking force across a train) was that if cars became separated, the brakes would be applied automatically. The connector between a truck and a trailer is similar to that between train cars in that it's designed to break away if pulled hard enough.
This scenario would, at worst, have turned out the same way, and potentially could have been avoided without a person driving it.
Whether there is a human driver in the truck or not, remote monitoring would have avoided this problem completely. Class 7 and 8 trucks can be commonly
Re: (Score:3)
Too complicated. Simpler
- implement system for police to take control over any vehicle so thieves and terrorists will no longer be able to flee and we'll finally be safe from bad people.
- then get an authorization key and access the system. Also, the only people overriding the external access will be..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. .50 cal api rounds do nil in such a situation. But you can be pretty sure to hit innocent bystanders.
If this is your plan, then the next terrorist will not even need to steer the truck into groups of people. Your .50 round will do the work for him.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is your plan, then the next terrorist will not even need to steer the truck into groups of people. Your .50 round will do the work for him.
A better plan is super-serious bollards. They have ones that pop up, but permanent ones would be fine in most contexts and much cheaper. You only need to put them in places where lots of people congregate, so it's not like you have to ruin every view with traffic control obstructions or anything like.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw that movie.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we only have to deal with those highly capable ones instead of any peon who have a gun and can drive.
The highly capable attacker might be sitting in his office in Petersburg, Shengzhou or D.C.
Re: Double edged sword (Score:1)
I have it on good authority that there are no highly capable people at desks in DC. The jury is still out about those folks at an army base slightly south of Baltimore.
Re: Double edged sword (Score:1)
So? Technology is already there and even if you don't accept it because you are a Luddite doesn't mean someone else can't do it.
someone Savy can still illegally hook up a truck to an Ardupilot without you or the governments approval.
Yes ppl are building killer lawn mowers already so it doesn't take much to scale it up a bit more.
Just Google it up a bit. You'll find that you are already living in the dystopian future you envisioned before you even tried to make a fuss over it pointing out the obvious point f
what, wait a second (Score:1)
The system was reportedly engaged after sensing a collision.
The regulation was adopted to reduce the number of rear end collisions by trucks.
So, ... this system reduces the number of rear end collisions by slamming on the breaks after it hits something?
Re: (Score:2)
The system was reportedly engaged after sensing a collision.
The regulation was adopted to reduce the number of rear end collisions by trucks.
So, ... this system reduces the number of rear end collisions by slamming on the breaks after it hits something?
Yessir, unfortunately the biomatter sensor had been bypassed after multiple roe deer collisions. [go.com]
Re:what, wait a second (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
People rear ending you still have
...responsibility for following too close, the cause of the majority of rear end collisions. (The rest are caused by inattentive driving.)
Re: (Score:3)
So, ... this system reduces the number of rear end collisions by slamming on the breaks after it hits something?
It's probably designed to prevent issues of runaway trucks where the driver is in someway incapacitated (asleep, passed out, heart attack, whatever) or simply inattentive. It applies after the first strike to keep from plowing on down the road or pushing the first car it hit into the car in front and cascading on down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A stopped out-of-control vehicle is a shitload safer than a moving out-of-control vehicle.
It's not exactly a novel concept; RV's and pretty much any towable trailer containing a battery and braking system have had automatic brakes in case of hitch failure for ages (I had a 1979 RV with a stock system).
Re: (Score:2)
No, the system is designed (in this case, this is not an autonomous car or driver assisting car) to give an audio alarm. This alarm has to be acknowledged after a second or two by the driver. If the driver does not hit the 'dead man switch' the car performs an automatic break.
The attacker in this case did not know about that system and/or where the switch is.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should learn german and read german news.
This was not a refugee but a planted "terrorist" or call him an insane criminal who planted himself with plenty of false documents.
If you have an idea how to handle the refugee crisis, then speak up. If you only has malice for the people suffering then please keep it for your self.
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
What was your point again?
Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, we shouldn't base the entirety of our behavior models on books over 1000 years old. I'm just saying....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.
You are comparing a book that is routinely ignored with a book that is routinely followed.
Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure both books are routinely ignored.
I went to school with a number of Muslim students. They didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I was actually in a study group with a couple of them for one semester. And at least one of them routinely ignored the Koran's prohibition on drinking.
I worked with at least one Muslim co-worker at my last job. He didn't attack me, or condemn me, or anything like that. I had a number of Muslim customers (including at least one who converted to Islam). None of them attacked me, or condemned me, or anything like that.
There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living in the U.S. I think we would have noticed if most of them were routinely attacking Christians.
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
I think we can safely say that it is both. Idiots are a problem, and people who get them worked up to do stupid things in the name of religion are also a problem. Take away that excuse and they'll have many less takers.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
I think we can safely say that it is both. Idiots are a problem, and people who get them worked up to do stupid things in the name of religion are also a problem. Take away that excuse and they'll have many less takers.
Not really, not all fundamentalists, and religions or ideologies, contribute to the problem. But for extremists, I think most agree they're a problem in every culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Koran actually does not prohibit drinking. ....
It prohibits 'getting high' (as in loosing control) from any drug.
In other words it allows drinking with measure (and in plenty of islamic countries drinking is common).
But then came the Sharia
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure both books are routinely ignored.
The one book directly forms the basis of government and law in many countries; it is, indeed, routinely followed to the letter.
[snipped anecdotal evidence]
It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.
In case you hadn't noticed, the fundamentalist followers of one of the books number so few that they are hardly a rounding error, while the fundamentalist followers of the other book (while still in a minority) comprise a significant percentage of the followers.
Your point that both the books prescribes barbarism is correct, your conclusion that both the religions are practiced in a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Completely false. Christians account for over 50 million Germans vs 21 million unaffiliated.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/
Please quit spreading lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany is quite christian, it is just not nearly as religious as USA. Christians form the majority of German population, most German holidays are christian in nature and the chancellor belongs to the christian democratic union.
Re: (Score:2)
As your parent already pointed out: germans are not christians, 80% or more are agnostics or atheists.
Going to church on christmas or voting for CDU or even being a member does not make you a Christian.
I bet minimum 30% of the non Jew, non Muslim and non others even explicitly left Church to safe the church tax.
After France Germany is most likely the country with the biggest 'non Christian' population and in Europe most certainly the biggest 'non believers' population.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't say that loudly in rural Bavaria.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of, from what I've seen it's pretty hard to prevent attacks especially if the attacker is suicidal. It seems that a lot of these folks use the easiest least common denominator way of doing attacks. Can't get a gun, use a pressure cooker. Can't even get that use a truck... In the grand scheme of things a lot of these folks are trying to get publicity on the news which the media does indirectly help but I don't see how that will ever change. Well unless we want the government to start covering up al
Re: (Score:2)
Well unless we want the government to start covering up all incidents as "accidents".
Might not be a bad approach. Deny them their notoriety, and terrorism becomes even more pointless than it already was. Isaac Asimov described this in his Foundation books (the 'Moron decree').
Re: (Score:2)
Secrecy avails little to nothing. THose that want to know will figure it out and abuse it, but others will not have accessibility to find solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to prevent all terrorist attacks is to have draconian security measures and an end to all personal freedom. That's not a desirable option.
The next-best thing is to deny attackers the information they would need to improve their attacks. That won't work for all attackers, but there are far fewer meticulously-planned attacks than there are half-cocked affairs. If we can help a few attackers to remain ignorant and ineffective at no cost to society, why not?
Re: irresponsible journalism (Score:2)
you are a pussy