Berlin this time

[Beskar]

Suspect has been shot dead in Milan.

[Husar]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The appeasers, apologists and ‘useful idiots’ have been out in force over the festive season, busily lighting candles, declaring ‘Ich Bin Ein Berliner’ and proclaiming that the murderous attack on the Christmas market had nothing to do either with Islam or mass immigration. Thinking of them prompted me to pluck from my shelf one of my favourite books, a slim tome entitled ‘Ourselves and Germany’, written in the winter of 1937 by the Marquess of Londonderry. Otherwise known as Charles Stewart Henry Vane-Tempest-Stewart, or ‘Charley’ to his pals, the Marquess could neither write well nor read men well, but his book is nonetheless riveting. It’s a timeless reminder of where an educated man’s moral cowardice and intellectual stupidity can lead.

The Marquess resigned as Secretary of State for Air in 1935, and spent the next two years scuttling back and forth to Germany as an unofficial emissary of Appeasement. Hitler, who extended his distinguished visitor ‘every consideration and courtesy’ was simply misunderstood by the British people, wrote Charley. So were Hermann Goering and Joachim von Ribbentrop, and that was the fault of Britain’s ‘cheap and popular press’, which twisted their words and turned the minds of the public against the Third Reich.

Charley wasn’t a bad man; he was just an arrogant and gullible one, who like many educated men of the era, was taken in by Hitler. The Fuhrer, for all his faults, was adept at hoodwinking his enemies by telling them with a polite smile what they wanted to hear. The Marquess’s cousin was Winston Churchill, who never misread Hitler, and he crops up in another book I’ve recently read, ‘Conquering Islamic Totalitarianism’, by François Fillon, the centre-right candidate in France’s presidential election.

Fillon asks his readers to imagine for a moment if, in these sombre times, they could think of ‘Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle, sitting at their desk, head in their hands, moaning ‘Where are we heading? Who are we? What is our identity?’.’ He scoffs at the idea, and in the next paragraphs declares that the West must look to the two wartime leaders for inspiration ‘faced with Islamic Totalitarianism’.

It’s a fight on two fronts, explains Fillon, against the Islamists themselves, and against the left, whom he damns for their ‘imbecilic sophism’, adding that they are ‘ideologically blind’ and suffering from a ‘paranoia of Islamophobics’. He makes no apology for drawing parallels between Nazism and Islamic extremism and vows to extinguish the ‘Spirit of Munich’ that he says permeates much of left-wing ideology. ‘Because let there be no mistake’, he writes, ‘these are the same people who bleated for pacifism and collective security in the 1930s when Hitler began re-arming a Germany still weak. These are the same people who cowardly celebrated the sinister Munich Agreement and claimed that peace had been saved’.


Fillon writes also that the time for accepting the unacceptable is over. After each new outrage, ‘we go through the same sadly familiar and repetitive scenario with the president and the politicians lighting candles to commemorate the massacre and observing the rituals of compassion’. In Angela Merkel’s case, it was laying a white rose at the scene of slaughter, an act she described as ‘incomprehensible’. Only it wasn’t, it was all too comprehensible to those who predicted that her decision to open Germany’s borders was a monumental misjudgement. Incomprehensible are the blunders made by the German security services who had been tracking Anis Amri since March; incomprehensible are the German privacy laws that meant the media wasn’t able to show a photograph of Amri; incomprehensible were the words of a German journalist who tweeted that the best response to the massacre was ‘patience, empathy and humanity’.

Patience for what? Until it’s our turn to be shot, knifed, blown up or run over by the Islamists? Speaking days after the attack in Nice last July that left 86 people dead, the then Prime Minister of France, Manuel Valls, said:

‘I need to tell the truth to the French: Terrorism will be part of everyday life for a long time.’

That statement confirmed to the French that their government prioritised political correctness above their protection. Terrorism need not be a part of everyday life if Europe controls its borders, outlaws Salafism, expels hate preachers, deports illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, imprisons all returning IS fighters and, above all, stops tolerating the intolerance of Islamic extremism, whose objective regarding Europe is conquest not cohabitation.

Writing in the Guardian, the historian Timothy Garton Ash warned that the ‘Berlin Christmas market attack could unleash forces of intolerance to threaten liberal ideals across the continent’. He was alluding to the forces of far-right fascism, which indeed are a concern, but they are on the rise only because a generation of European leaders have failed to confront Islam’s ‘forces of intolerance’.

Meanwhile, Islamic terror attacks in the Middle East have killed thousands of Christians, Jews, Yazidis and other minority faiths, and in his pre-recorded message for Radio Four’s ‘Thought for the Day’, Prince Charles warned that ‘all of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s’. Islamofascism is the clear and present danger. In the past two years its foot soldiers have killed 250 people in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, and Copenhagen. While its ideological warriors have made big advances, under a creeping barrage of ‘Islamophobia’, against democratic free speech so that now only the bravest dare stick their head above the parapet of political correctness.

Witness Theresa May’s appeasement in front of Parliament when she was given the chance to support the gymnast Louis Smith, who had been ostracised because of light-hearted mockery of Islam. ‘We value freedom of expression and freedom of speech in this country’, May told the Commons. ‘That is absolutely essential in underpinning our democracy, but we also value tolerance of others and tolerance in relation to religions.’

This age of appeasement must come to an end, and François Fillon in 2017 has the opportunity to redefine Europe’s attitude towards Islamism. ‘Fatalism is no way to fight fanaticism’, he writes in his book, adding that a more forceful approach is urgently required to prevent a third world war. If he’s elected president of France in the spring he must follow through on his pledge because Europe desperately needs a strong leader, a man like Churchill, who from the outset understood that evil must never be appeased.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12...s-facing-west/

Just a counter to the above article posted by Beskar. I'll let you lot judge.

A completely egocentric piece of hysterial bullcrap.
If we can adjust to global warming, we can also adjust to terrorism. Whether I wait patiently to get maimed by Islamists or to die to multi-resistent bacteria, food poisoning or simply starvation is all the same to me. In fact a bomb or a bullet may be quicker than slowly getting eaten from the inside.
The rest of the text partially doesn't fit the timeline in Beskar's link and then he takes the most outrageous leftist positions and seems to ascribe them to the entire left, much like leftists call everyone on the right Nazis.
If this Nazi wants to polarize, he does a wonderful job, but I say if we keep terrorism around, it creates more jobs and economic growth, so more power to them, nothing else is important.

Don't agree? Well, Donald Trump dismantling the Affordable Care Act may kill a few thousand people every year, but who gives a crap as long as he "saves jobs", right? Surely one can agree with him...

Hells Bells talk about useful idiots!

Please expand, who are the idiots, why and how do you know them so well?

[InsaneApache]

I think you just proved his point.

[Pannonian]

A completely egocentric piece of hysterial bullcrap.
If we can adjust to global warming, we can also adjust to terrorism. Whether I wait patiently to get maimed by Islamists or to die to multi-resistent bacteria, food poisoning or simply starvation is all the same to me. In fact a bomb or a bullet may be quicker than slowly getting eaten from the inside.
The rest of the text partially doesn't fit the timeline in Beskar's link and then he takes the most outrageous leftist positions and seems to ascribe them to the entire left, much like leftists call everyone on the right Nazis.
If this Nazi wants to polarize, he does a wonderful job, but I say if we keep terrorism around, it creates more jobs and economic growth, so more power to them, nothing else is important.

Don't agree? Well, Donald Trump dismantling the Affordable Care Act may kill a few thousand people every year, but who gives a crap as long as he "saves jobs", right? Surely one can agree with him...

Please expand, who are the idiots, why and how do you know them so well?

The problem is that advocates of the most outrageous positions on the Left are in charge of the mainstream Left in Britain. List all the ridiculous positions that the fringes of the British Left have taken in the past, all the cosying up to terrorists and whatnot as long as they were anti-Anglo-America, and you have a list of friends of Jeremy Corbyn. And not just Corbyn, but also the current occupiers of the top jobs in the Shadow Cabinet. Out of the top four jobs in HM's opposition, only Thornberry (shadow Foreign Secretary) doesn't have that history, and probably only because she hasn't been in politics as long as the other three have. Appeasers and friends of Islamofascism? Seems an accurate description of the positions taken by Corbyn (Leader of opposition), McDonnell (shadow Chancellor) and Abbott (shadow Home Secretary).

[Husar]

I think you just proved his point.

Blatant lie.

The problem is that advocates of the most outrageous positions on the Left are in charge of the mainstream Left in Britain. List all the ridiculous positions that the fringes of the British Left have taken in the past, all the cosying up to terrorists and whatnot as long as they were anti-Anglo-America, and you have a list of friends of Jeremy Corbyn. And not just Corbyn, but also the current occupiers of the top jobs in the Shadow Cabinet. Out of the top four jobs in HM's opposition, only Thornberry (shadow Foreign Secretary) doesn't have that history, and probably only because she hasn't been in politics as long as the other three have. Appeasers and friends of Islamofascism? Seems an accurate description of the positions taken by Corbyn (Leader of opposition), McDonnell (shadow Chancellor) and Abbott (shadow Home Secretary).

Now you make this about Britain and Corbyn again.
As if all the references to crazy island politics in IA's terrible link weren't enough already.
Can't British people talk about anything without constantly drawing parallels to their own island?
No wonder you left the EU to be alone with yourselves. And then you blame Middle Easterners for inbreeding...

Is that offensive? Well, IA's link taught me that appeasement is not a viable tactic...
May also explain Corbyn's actions while we're at it.

[Pannonian]

Blatant lie.

Now you make this about Britain and Corbyn again.
As if all the references to crazy island politics in IA's terrible link weren't enough already.
Can't British people talk about anything without constantly drawing parallels to their own island?
No wonder you left the EU to be alone with yourselves. And then you blame Middle Easterners for inbreeding...

Is that offensive? Well, IA's link taught me that appeasement is not a viable tactic...
May also explain Corbyn's actions while we're at it.

The kind of appeasement that's offensive to most Britons is the kind that blames the host culture for not being accepting enough of the incoming culture, when the incoming culture are the ones acting. Eg. the Rotherham child abuse scandal where councillors feared being called racist if they drew attention to the network of Asian males. Not an unreasonable fear if you look at the professional offence takers. Go a bit further and look at groups like Stop the War, which are notorious for having been taken over by Islamists and Islamism sympathisers. These are the groups that the current Labour leadership travelled in for decades (there was a furore over a planned appearance at an SWP do a couple of months back, which was too far even for some of Corbyn's diehard supporters, but Corbyn went anyway). These are groups that take positions that are patently outrageous to the vast majority of British people. But they're the heart and soul of Labour's leadership. So to disclaim IA's article to argue that taking an outrageous position and claiming it to represent the Left in general is unfair. They do represent the British Left's mainstream leaders, at present.

See also the guy who accosted the British Jewish Labour MP with classic anti-semitic comments, at the launch of Labour's study on anti-semitism in Britain. Corbyn took his side of course, since he was a longtime friend and supporter of his. These "outrageous" people are friends of the leader of the mainstream Left, a man who, as his ministerial appointments show, values his friends above everything else.

[Husar]

So to disclaim IA's article to argue that taking an outrageous position and claiming it to represent the Left in general is unfair. They do represent the British Left's mainstream leaders, at present.

So it is merely completely misplaced in a discussion about this particular event and German politics?
Given that IA's article blamed Merkel in stark contradiction to the events as outlined in Beskar's article, I am now left to wonder why the article references the German attack at all if it is merely about British politics? Could have saved himself the embarassment.

I am not sure why an attack in Germany is brought into an article about how terrible British people are. It doesn't get better if the author gets basic facts wrong:

Only it wasn’t, it was all too comprehensible to those who predicted that her decision to open Germany’s borders was a monumental misjudgement. Incomprehensible are the blunders made by the German security services who had been tracking Anis Amri since March; incomprehensible are the German privacy laws that meant the media wasn’t able to show a photograph of Amri; incomprehensible were the words of a German journalist who tweeted that the best response to the massacre was ‘patience, empathy and humanity’.

First he talks about the troubles of appeasement and then he wishes for a German surveillance state and makes a completely misplaced statement about Angela Mekrle inviting all the foreigners. The perp entered Europe in 2011 and Germany a month before Angela Merkel "invited everyone". the attack on our privacy laws is completely unfounded and neither does he explain what he thinks the fault of German securiity services was. If he wants a Gestapo back that puts people in front of fake courts and executes them for talking the wrong way, then he should stop whining about Hitler and just say so.

[LittleGrizzly]

The other topics which Corbyn was mentioned in went quiet so this was seen as the best place to link it in...

Terrorism in Germany? Probably Corbyn's fault.

If you think about Corbyn has constantly opposed Western policy in the Middle East. The West's ME policies have been hugely successful, look what we have achieved. So any problems still existing in the Middle East are the fault of people like Corbyn...

It makes perfect sense to me.

I would like to offer a personal apology as a Corbyn supporter Husar, I'm clearly culpable.

[Montmorency]

To oppose a policy is not to convey a better one.

[Pannonian]

To oppose a policy is not to convey a better one.

Particularly as Corbyn has consistently appeared on the same platforms as those who have it in for the west. I'm not a fan of Israel, same as Corbyn. But I'm aware that the others are worse. Corbyn and his ilk work on the basis that, if Israel are bad, then those who oppose Israel must therefore be good. Hence his support of Islamists. Leftists everywhere should beware of the road taken by the British Left.

[LittleGrizzly]

His opposition of constant Western mistakes in the Middle East actually does convey another position.

Instead of supporting Israel and cheering them on enthusiastically he proposes we don't.

Instead of invading Iraq and turning the place into some kind of terrorist hellhole, he proposes we don't.

These are far better ideas, not invading Iraq is as much a policy as invading Iraq, just an infinitely better policy.

Pannonian again in your rush to dismiss Corbyn you've made a mistake, Corbyn ruled out talking to ISIS whilst New Labour candidate Smith said he would talk to them.

In fairness I think the New Labour guy was just saying what he thought might help him win, rather than any sensible well thought out policy, which Is probably why he was picked as the New Labour candidate!

Edit: Could we split this into a new topic or maybe just put these last few replies into the other topic regarding Corbyn, I feel a bit wrong ranting about new Labour on a topic about the Berlin attacks.

[Montmorency]

His opposition of constant Western mistakes in the Middle East actually does convey another position.

Instead of supporting Israel and cheering them on enthusiastically he proposes we don't.

Instead of invading Iraq and turning the place into some kind of terrorist hellhole, he proposes we don't.

These are far better ideas, not invading Iraq is as much a policy as invading Iraq, just an infinitely better policy.

Pannonian again in your rush to dismiss Corbyn you've made a mistake, Corbyn ruled out talking to ISIS whilst New Labour candidate Smith said he would talk to them.

In fairness I think the New Labour guy was just saying what he thought might help him win, rather than any sensible well thought out policy, which Is probably why he was picked as the New Labour candidate!

Edit: Could we split this into a new topic or maybe just put these last few replies into the other topic regarding Corbyn, I feel a bit wrong ranting about new Labour on a topic about the Berlin attacks.

I don't agree that the negations of current or past policies would count as better alternatives. It's worth pointing out that you don't think much of concrete American inaction in the matter of the recent UN resolution. This has wider significance for the uses of policy beyond the specific issues named. The contrapositive or negation of a bad policy is not a good policy, and those who criticize bad policies better have something else to present.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think you misread my post in the other topic, I actually said what America did was a good thing. What I criticised was the Obama administration doing the right thing at the very end of his term when there was no cost to it, after having the almost opposite policy for his entire two terms as president. Surely that was fairly clear when I said "Obama has finally decided to stand up and do the right thing"

Not invading Iraq was definitely a better idea than invading Iraq, the support of Israel might be debatable depending on your point of view but I imagine the vast majority of people would choose not to invade Iraq if we could change our mistake. Fair enough if you think our invasion of Iraq has made the world and the ME a better and safer place but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

TBH I have to disagree with this idea that somehow opposing a bad war isn't a good policy, was Corbyn supposed to pick out an alternate country for us to go to war with instead. Corbyn's policy at the time (I imagine) was probably lets not invade any countries right now, which looking back with retrospect was a much better policy than the one we followed.

As for his position with Israel surely that is as much a policy as anyone else's position on Israel. Supporting one, or the other, or both or neither (all to varying degress) would all actually be policies (well it would be the general position you build the specifics on)

[Montmorency]

Fair enough if you think our invasion of Iraq has made the world and the ME a better and safer place but I am going to have to strongly disagree.

I don't, but I don't think it's so simple as to say that "not invading" is the end of the story (either in policy or in parliamentary politics). I disagree with those who speculate that an Al Gore administration would have come to reproduce Bush's path into Iraq, but I do believe that every year that passed for the "unfriendly" regional dictators without generalized unrest and conflict (e.g. Arab-Spring type unrest), impetus within the US executive would have increased to undertake military solutions to perceived problems. Again, this doesn't mean that any particular military action is a good idea at all, but that "not" doing something is not a replacement and to prevent similar bad policies there need to be viable alternatives that acknowledge underlying imperatives. There is a reason that all modern American executives turn out as hawks of one sort or another, even Jimmy Carter, and declaiming "X is a bad idea" is like berating a whack-a-mole machine.

I think Hillary Clinton touched on this some years ago and in the recent presidential contest when grilled on Senate votes re: Iraq, that 'knowing then what we do now, I would not have voted to grant authority etc.' in that she seemed to shy away from posturing with reckless claims of what would have happened had she been in POTUS or somesuch.

[Husar]

I don't agree that the negations of current or past policies would count as better alternatives. [...] The contrapositive or negation of a bad policy is not a good policy, and those who criticize bad policies better have something else to present.

I'm a bit unclear on what exactly you mean, although I can see some merit in it. In general, one should always consider doing nothing as a possible alternative, so I don't see why it cannot be a viable policy to say that nothing should be done on a certain issue. If you are strictly speaking about past issues, then I would agree with you, about current policy I'm not so sure, is the idea to revoke a law/policy that is currently in effect not a viable policy? Such as repealing the Affordable Care Act etc.

Whether doing nothing is actually a better policy than doing something can be hard to prove without a fortune teller, but the same is true the other way around. With the Iraq invasion having been such a mess it seems quite clear that it was not such a great policy decision, whether Corbyn already opposed it in the beginning I have no idea/don't care.

[LittleGrizzly]

If your point is that Corbyns policies couldn't just consist of lets not do this or lets not do that then I fully agree, basically doing nothing abroad would still be a kind of policy I guess (isolationist) but there has to be some things you actually plan on doing other than criticising everyone else's decisions and doing nothing all the time.

But doing nothing is the best thing to do sometimes, during the build up to Iraq there wasn't really many options specifically in regards to our potential invasion of Iraq other than whether to do it or not, It isn't as if we had to invade a country and although Iraq turned out badly it could have turned out even worse had we gone for the other country.

I can understand your argument that the Americans might have eventually wanted to reach a military solution to their problems in he Middle East but our support of such things just encourages them and perhaps in the long run might actually mean more military solutions, also just because the Americans are about to make a mistake it doesn't mean we have to join in with them. By supporting them strongly when they are doing the right thing but not supporting their mistakes we could be a positive influence on them.

[Greyblades]

Ok, I go to the map again: "Wächtersbach: Südländer überfällt Bäckerei mit Schußwaffe und erbeutet Geld"

Links to this: http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/43561/3256629

In the text it says he spoke German without an accent but looked like a "southerner".

--------------------------------

Next one, same screen: "Hünfelden: Südländer lenkt in Postfiliale Mitarbeiterin ab, während Komplizin Geld stiehlt

Links to this: http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/50153/3330615

Again, the article mentions that the trick thief spoke German without accent and looked like a "southerner".

--------------------------------

Maybe, the orange ones are just the wrong color to pick...

A blue one from somehwere in the north-east: "Baek: Afghane tickt zweimal an einem Tag aus, geht auf Leute los, landet stationär im Krankenhaus"

Links to this: http://www.maz-online.de/Lokales/Pri...ger-geschnappt

The article describes the action a bit more nuanced than the caption on the map. The Afghan man got into a fight with a Syrian and was hospitalized the first time around. Later he met him again and attacked him with a Shisha when a German woman got involved and got light cuts on her hand. The Afghan man was then brought to the hospital and lept there now because he seemed confused. Your map "abbreviates" this as "Afghan man loses it twice a day, attacks people, ends up in stationary hospital care". The actual article does not mention who or what started the first fight or whether this was in any way a criminal act worse than a bar brawl.
By the way, does a Syrian getting beaten by an Afghan count as "my people bleeding"? I know the German woman got light cuts, I'm curious about the Syrian.

--------------------------------

Oh, look a green one, this is terrible: Anklam: "Migrant dreht im Aldi durch, geht mit abgeschlagener Glasflasche auf Kunden los"

Translation of the caption: "Migrant goes crazy in ALDI [supermarket], attacks customers with broken glass bottle"

Links to this: http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/108768/3260880

Link describes indeed that the man was Afghan and somehow started a fight with a 30 year-old customer in the supermarket. He even tried to hit the man with said bottle but failed to hit him at all. He was then subdued by two other men as he was cutting his own belly and chest with the bottle and was found to have a blood alcohol of 1.92 per mill...

--------------------------------

I can totally see your point based on your totally legit and terrifying examples. You have to give them though that they learned to speak German without accent really fast... And no, I honestly didn't even skip any, these are the ones I clicked in the order in which I clicked them.

Verifying your terrible map seems harder than one would think with all the "overwhelming evidence" of all the terrible crimes these people commit...

So what about the ones I found in Saxony without even trying hard? Your Facebook map is simply pointless because to make sure it can be used for anything, one would indeed have to check all the individual links given that "mistakes" can be found by just checking three random links...

Congratulations on picking up on your police force's euphamism of "Südländer" to side step the acknowledgement of north african/middle eastern suspects's actual origins. eg:

According to witnesses, all four men were Southern (possibly Turkish).

Goebbels should sue them for stealing his schtick.

This is what I was putting off reading till the new years to preserve the christmas mood? I expected a shredding rebuttle that shows extreme disingenuity of the map and the best you can do is pick 1 case of failed assault and present it as representative of the majority or whole?

I'm not even sure what you are trying to do with your inter-migrant assault, as if the fact that migrants attack eachother negates a point that they are harming your people, a point which is suported by literally hundreds of others.

I knew your ideological hangups make you incapable of acknowledgeing anything that disagrees with your world view but that it has so crippled your ability to argue is downright sad, to the point that even the 11 post troll could do better with his hangup over the inclusion of negligential arson.

Here, lets put an actual selection of the contents on record:
refugees beat footballers with iron bars
Three Pakistani men blackmail and stab shopkeeper.
A Syrian warfighter accused of having thrown his three children out of window in Bonn.
Four syrians rape two underage girls
11 year old raped by 17 year old afghan
22-year-old Afghan is said to have forced a 4-year-old to oral sex.
Refugees rape twelve-year-old boy
51 year old woman raped and robbed by north african in Saxony
24-year-old abused on toilet by asylum-seeker from Morocco.
15-year-old raped by a 20-year-old Tunisian
Three Syrian asylum seekers abuse four girls between the ages of 10 and 13
28 year old african accused of raping 16 year old
14-year-old refugee sexually abused female employee of asylum shelter
6 men from Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq arrested for molesting children in Koln swimming bath
Asylumn seeker sexually assault 4 girls in Dresden swimming pool
Baden swimming pool bans male refugees due to overwhelming complaints of sexual assault

As we lack actual police statisics for 2016 and likely will for another six months we can only ascertain the situation through independant record keeping. The Einzenfall map is the largest collection of refugree crimes open to the public and the picture it paints is not pretty; hence why the immigrant crisis apologists are picking at every flaw to discredit it.

Picking at a couple of individual cases is a futile gesture that affects not overwhelming scale of it all, discredit a portion, put doubt in a category, all small quibbles when faced with a grand mass of blood and tears.

Greyblades usually has no idea what he's talking about. No need to berate him about that. It's his right to be ignorant and biased.

Gloating at the "victories" of others of which you do not contribute only exhibits cowardice, Samaritan. Failure not withstanding, at least husar has the courage to make an attempt at argument.

Put up or shut up.

[Husar]

Congratulations on picking up on your police force's euphamism of "Südländer" to side step the acknowledgement of north african/middle eastern suspects's actual origins. eg:

Completely missed the topic and the point, but thanks for the congratulations.
If you want to tell me that people who arrived sometime in 2016 spoke accent-free German when they committed their crimes, I have only this for you:

Why you talk about euphemisms is beyond me, it has nothing to do with what I said...

As for the rest of your post, no, the map is still garbage as you have been told several times now.

[Gilrandir]

If you want to tell me that people who arrived sometime in 2016 spoke accent-free German when they committed their crimes, I have only this for you:

Whaty if they for a hundred times rehearsed (with an authentic German tutor) the phrases they were to say while committing the crimes?

[Husar]

Whaty if they for a hundred times rehearsed (with an authentic German tutor) the phrases they were to say while committing the crimes?

What if Angela Merkel turned into Barbie when you kissed her on the mouth?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What if Angela Merkel turned into Barbie when you kissed her on the mouth?

Any frogs about instead?

[Gilrandir]

What if Angela Merkel turned into Barbie when you kissed her on the mouth?

You mean to say she is not? Wow, what a beginning of the year!

[Viking]

When Fragony tried that, she turned into a farm horse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is not action or in-action in the Middle East, it's lack of consistency.

We support the rebellion in Libya, gaining significant political capital, this triggers a mass uprising in Syria with the expectation that NATO will help topple Assad. We prevaricate (for years), the rebellion stalls, the country is ruined, the Arabs in the Middle East are convinced we only supported Libya for the oil. This leads to a general backlash, the liberal forces in Libya and elsewhere are marginalised and discredited by Western contamination.

Into the vacuum steps ISIS.

One could make the argument that if we had not intervened in Libya things would be better in Syria now but one could equally make the argument that if we had intervened promptly in Syria things would be better in both countries now.

It's easy to say "we should" or "we shouldn't" but it's impossible to know what would have happened either way. What can be said is that we do not have a coherent policy on the Middle East and so we react on an individual basis, and the Arabs interpret this as opportunism.

[Pannonian]

The problem is not action or in-action in the Middle East, it's lack of consistency.

We support the rebellion in Libya, gaining significant political capital, this triggers a mass uprising in Syria with the expectation that NATO will help topple Assad. We prevaricate (for years), the rebellion stalls, the country is ruined, the Arabs in the Middle East are convinced we only supported Libya for the oil. This leads to a general backlash, the liberal forces in Libya and elsewhere are marginalised and discredited by Western contamination.

Into the vacuum steps ISIS.

One could make the argument that if we had not intervened in Libya things would be better in Syria now but one could equally make the argument that if we had intervened promptly in Syria things would be better in both countries now.

It's easy to say "we should" or "we shouldn't" but it's impossible to know what would have happened either way. What can be said is that we do not have a coherent policy on the Middle East and so we react on an individual basis, and the Arabs interpret this as opportunism.

Only one side can afford to be absolutely consistent in all instances, and it's ISIS, because their nihilistic ideology costs little and already has centuries of fertile ground to plant in. Otherwise, you pick and choose. If picking and choosing cannot allow for a good result, then there is the consistent application of the other liberal argument, which is self determination. That would both fit in with cutting costs, and allows us to credibly clean our hands of the mess that is the Muslim world. The non-liberal argument of forceful imperialism was well and truly lost in the two world wars, so the liberal arguments of self determination and spreading liberal democracy are what we have to choose from. And one of them has been proven to not work in isolation, and is beyond our means across the region.

[Husar]

The problem is not action or in-action in the Middle East, it's lack of consistency.

We support the rebellion in Libya, gaining significant political capital, this triggers a mass uprising in Syria with the expectation that NATO will help topple Assad. We prevaricate (for years), the rebellion stalls, the country is ruined, the Arabs in the Middle East are convinced we only supported Libya for the oil. This leads to a general backlash, the liberal forces in Libya and elsewhere are marginalised and discredited by Western contamination.

Into the vacuum steps ISIS.

One could make the argument that if we had not intervened in Libya things would be better in Syria now but one could equally make the argument that if we had intervened promptly in Syria things would be better in both countries now.

It's easy to say "we should" or "we shouldn't" but it's impossible to know what would have happened either way. What can be said is that we do not have a coherent policy on the Middle East and so we react on an individual basis, and the Arabs interpret this as opportunism.

But isn't that basically the case? Some people right here on this board say quite openly that we should and do only care as long as they have some material use for us and humanitarian issues that go beyond that are liberal pinko concerns, who cares if they all die in a fire once we got all their oil.
And if anyone dares suggest that this could be remnants of us giving them ideas and leaders without all the education and knowledge that we (try to) give our citizens for the election etc., they're a race traitor right away. It's like we gave them (who we considered stupid monkeys at the time anyway) democracy and if they can't handle it properly without the centuries or decades of societal change and preparation we had before we got it, they're obviously stupid and it's all their own fault and let's not blame us for enslaving them etc., those are old stories anyway...

I fully agree that doing the right thing at this point is hard, I would begin by not interfering as much as we currently do, and by that I do not only mean militarily but also in terms of business. Of course we are afraid that the Chinese get all the business then at which point I just put on my Sanders-smile and say "Capitalist competition is a wonderful thing at all times, is it not?".
As a cynic I would say let the Chinese have it and we'll see how they do, in the worst case they may be a good distraction from us, in the best case they can actually help.

[Pannonian]

But isn't that basically the case? Some people right here on this board say quite openly that we should and do only care as long as they have some material use for us and humanitarian issues that go beyond that are liberal pinko concerns, who cares if they all die in a fire once we got all their oil.
And if anyone dares suggest that this could be remnants of us giving them ideas and leaders without all the education and knowledge that we (try to) give our citizens for the election etc., they're a race traitor right away. It's like we gave them (who we considered stupid monkeys at the time anyway) democracy and if they can't handle it properly without the centuries or decades of societal change and preparation we had before we got it, they're obviously stupid and it's all their own fault and let's not blame us for enslaving them etc., those are old stories anyway...

I fully agree that doing the right thing at this point is hard, I would begin by not interfering as much as we currently do, and by that I do not only mean militarily but also in terms of business. Of course we are afraid that the Chinese get all the business then at which point I just put on my Sanders-smile and say "Capitalist competition is a wonderful thing at all times, is it not?".
As a cynic I would say let the Chinese have it and we'll see how they do, in the worst case they may be a good distraction from us, in the best case they can actually help.

I now believe that Bush and Blair did indeed genuinely believe that liberal democracy could be spread to Iraq once the tyrant was toppled. But I thought it was delusional then given the history, and experience has shown that I'd underestimated the hostility that would be shown to us. Since, after we tried to do good, we got hit with accusation after accusation of imperialism, why should we do any more? We tried to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, but despite good intentions we were obviously in the wrong, as everyone keeps telling us. And now the suggested counter policy is met with accusations of leaving the brown people to the fate that the imperialists callously framed for them. Since we're evil imperialists either way, whether we do or we don't, why should we spend money on one option when we can save money on the other?

[Husar]

I now believe that Bush and Blair did indeed genuinely believe that liberal democracy could be spread to Iraq once the tyrant was toppled. But I thought it was delusional then given the history, and experience has shown that I'd underestimated the hostility that would be shown to us. Since, after we tried to do good, we got hit with accusation after accusation of imperialism, why should we do any more? We tried to bring liberal democracy to Iraq, but despite good intentions we were obviously in the wrong, as everyone keeps telling us. And now the suggested counter policy is met with accusations of leaving the brown people to the fate that the imperialists callously framed for them. Since we're evil imperialists either way, whether we do or we don't, why should we spend money on one option when we can save money on the other?

You missed the part of my point where I referred to ongoing imperialism and said fixing it now is relatively hard, but the least we can do is stop the things we're doing now, such as fishing away all their fish, putting their farmers out of work by exporting cheap, heavily subsidized bread and vegetables to them and so on. The evil imperialism I only brought up as a reason people can't just blame the problems solely on the supposed stupidity of the locals. Stop being so defensive about things I did not even say, please.

As for the German elections, looks like the AfD gained a few points since December (if the sample of around 1000 people is sufficiently large to not put that within the margin of error), here's is the new result from January 5th, interviews were performed on January 2nd and 3rd.

http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/...90b2df4a4.html

[Pannonian]

You missed the part of my point where I referred to ongoing imperialism and said fixing it now is relatively hard, but the least we can do is stop the things we're doing now, such as fishing away all their fish, putting their farmers out of work by exporting cheap, heavily subsidized bread and vegetables to them and so on. The evil imperialism I only brought up as a reason people can't just blame the problems solely on the supposed stupidity of the locals. Stop being so defensive about things I did not even say, please.

As for the German elections, looks like the AfD gained a few points since December (if the sample of around 1000 people is sufficiently large to not put that within the margin of error), here's is the new result from January 5th, interviews were performed on January 2nd and 3rd.

http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/...90b2df4a4.html

What right do we have in deciding how it should be fixed? You're putting forward the neocon argument of spreading the light wherever it is dark, but Iraq has already shown that the people you spread the light to may have a different idea of what is light and what is dark. The only philosophically consistent argument is self determination. That's treating every country as an equal. Not some as benighted heathens whom it is our duty to bring into the light. We're grown ups, and so are they. We have our personal space, and so do they. If we want to pursue transactions, they are to be agreed between two adults. Not imposed by a grown up on a child, in whatever fashion the grown up deems proper.

[Husar]

What right do we have in deciding how it should be fixed? You're putting forward the neocon argument of spreading the light wherever it is dark, but Iraq has already shown that the people you spread the light to may have a different idea of what is light and what is dark. The only philosophically consistent argument is self determination. That's treating every country as an equal. Not some as benighted heathens whom it is our duty to bring into the light. We're grown ups, and so are they. We have our personal space, and so do they. If we want to pursue transactions, they are to be agreed between two adults. Not imposed by a grown up on a child, in whatever fashion the grown up deems proper.

Now you sound like you basically agree with me and just don't know it.

The only difference is that I believe that as adults they also need some space to develop. Your approach seems to me like you denied your child an education and then complain that, now that it is an adult, it has no job. Then you proceed to call the adult a loser who cannot achieve anything in life and say that is entirely his own fault...

Have a good night.