Checked German media, this tweet is wrong. Full image and name are available and were published,even his passport. Could be that this was temporary, but I couldn't find any source that backs the tweet up.
It could also be that it's from Prison Planet, a perpetually dishonest batsh!t Alex Jones organization.
U wot mate? It's ridiculous that you are trying to put the burden of proof for what happened there on us, instead of doing your own proper research. You can go on Youtube and find footage, listen to victims' statements, etc. etc. I am from Bonn which is very close to Cologne. You can trust that I know what happened significantly better than you. Even go to freaking Wikipedia if you want to read up on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany And don't try to argue about numbers with me. It was a completely chaotic situation. You can look at the Youtube footage. Police was completely unable to control the situation. The thing is, this is not only happening on New Year's Eve. It happens all the time. Not at that scale at the same time, but it happens every day. And it's always the same people doing it.
I corrected your statement. The link you posted did not say what you said. I pointed out the difference between your statement and the statement of the article. Not that controversial, mate. Well I tend to require evidence to believe stuff, so, yeah. Sorry. I don't feel like doing that. I figure somebody out there has more than anecdotes they can give me. Maybe I figure wrong? I saw you post a few things about German police ineptitude, so maybe that explains the lack of concrete findings here? Eh. Wikipedia sure. Personal ATW anecdotes? No. Proximity is not some kind of expert credential here, but it does make it a very personal thing for you. That's fair and fine, and I legit appreciate the links and additional info, but I would once again tell you and Yung to take a moment and reflect on how you are reacting to/treating someone who is genuinely curious about this situation, has no prior knowledge or background, and is asking simple, straightforward questions and looking for simple, straightforward answers. Someone who you know stands with you on this subject. I am not the enemy here. It's hard to be taken seriously by the general public when the moment some bystander pokes their head into a topic seeking clarity they get flamed and accused of thinking/doing/saying things they have no association with. People see that behavior and think you have an agenda and it hurts your credibility.
If you were genuinely curious, you would not be lazy and say "I don't feel like doing that" - it took me 2/10ths of a second to get the Wikipedia link in English. I'm fairly sure you haven't actually read it. So if you are too lazy to read, don't expect me to bother to do the research for you, especially when it is all really old news to me, and only tangentially relevant to this current thread. You thought you could be a smartass by nitpicking something from a single article that was quoted, but totally failed to understand what has really happened, and are arrogant enough to not take the word of two people who are much closer to the situation than you, and certainly have followed lots more media about it than you ever will. I'm not saying you are the enemy, obviously not, but don't be a smartass about details from a single article when you basically have no clue and didn't bother to inform yourself.
It's a pretty common phenomenon for people who are curious about something to ask those more informed or updated than them to provide them with links/information about a subject at hand. Not really sure how this blows your mind. I did read it. And it is concerning and alarming. But I'm sorry I asked at this point. If I wanted to be a smartass, I could have been way, WAY more of a prick than just very plain vanilla pointing out a statistic/figure you quoted was wrong. Sorry, but again, proximity does not make you an expert. That's not a drum worth beating here. Clearly you have followed it closely, and that is why I asked you for information -- which you supplied in the most dickheaded way possible through these posts, which is why I'm now sorry I even bothered. Sorry I pointed out you said something incorrect. Clearly this is an emotionally charged subject for you, so I'll write this weirdly aggressive and ill-tempered set of responses off as an aberration. Moving on.
The bolded part is just simply wrong, stupid and uninformed. That's not the way to ask a question. You "corrected" something by saying something completely wrong. You wasted everyone's time. To explain it to you once again in simple terms: No, that does not mean that "60, not 1,000" were migrants - it just means that only 60 were identified as "recently" having migrated - because police didn't manage to arrest more than 120, and of those, 60 "recently" migrated (which doesn't mean the other 60 didn't migrate). That does not mean that the other 940 weren't migrants, which is however what you are claiming (while admitting that you have no knowledge and didn't bother to research it, while at the same time arrogantly disbelieving those who are close to the situation and have had lots more exposure to information about it than you ever will, and trying to put some kind of burden of proof onto them, when you are the one misunderstanding a single article). If you had actually bothered to read sources, you would have understood that my statements were entirely correct. You can re-read the Wikipedia article if you still don't understand it.
RE: BOLDED You do realize that I never said or even implied that, right? You are assuming that. Very, very incorrectly. Me pointing out the true number of confirmed immigrants in no way creates or assumes anything about the identity of the unknown people in this situation. If that is what has got your underwear twisted up so tight, then this is an extremely silly argument.
You are the one who thought he was "correcting an incorrect statement", by saying: "That means that 60~ were recent migrants/foreign nationals, not 1000" What else is your sentence supposed to mean then? And what exactly have you supposedly corrected that was supposedly wrong? You are very bad at just saying "sorry, I was wrong, I had no idea, but was still trying to be a smartass". That, however, is exactly what happened.
So, to summarize this situation: ATW says "majority of the 2,000 guys who sexually assaulted and raped 1,200 German women last New Year's Eve in Cologne." Donny points out that the article actually states that only 60~ were confirmed recent migrants/foreign nationals, not 1000. And now, for some inexplicable reason, we end up here. To everyone keeping score at home, hope you had fun.
Trollolol. Such a weak attempt at saving face. Here is what you said, verbatim: "That means that 60~ were recent migrants/foreign nationals, not 1000" You were trying to "correct" this part of my post, based on your misunderstanding of a single article you have ever read about the whole situation: So what exactly did you "correct" there, if you are "in no way creating or assuming anything about the identity of the unknown people in this situation". Don't embarrass yourself further. Step away from the keyboard and gather yourself. But congratulations on totally derailing a thread on a serious, current topic, by trying to be a smartass about something from almost a year ago about which you have - as by your own admission - no prior knowledge.
Goodness, I just re-read the thread and saw that Yung-T had also already tried to explain it to our "strong background in journalism, but don't want to research - expert corrector", and it was not understood. Why did I even bother...amazing.
"Hey guys, check out this link I found that says 2+2=5!" "Oh, hey man, that actually says 2+2=4" "F*** YOU YOU F***ING PIECE OF S***!" The D&D truly is a special place.
Let's all just take a step back, deep breath, grab a beer. Ok. We are all Rockets fans here and I don't think anybody is really on a completely different spectrum here.
