IMMIGRATION thread

[Pannonian]

Note that what you quote says more.

What Husar says also says a lot. "yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets." Neither I, nor anyone in the UK, ever elected Merkel. What Merkel decides to do with Germany's borders is the business of herself and the German people who elected her. The UK's borders is the business of the British government and the British people who elected them. The presumption of others to override the security concerns of the UK is part of the reason for our Europhobia. And I speak as a Europhile.

[Sarmatian]

It doesn't change the ultimate result for locals: their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants whatever explanation is behind their behavior.

Not anymore that it would with a million of other people.


BUT: when they try to be united with their families, the latter will have to go through the same hardships involving camps, smugglers, corrupt officials and so on. Or do you mean Germany will PAY to ship the rest of the family in?

No, because once he's settled in and legally allowed to live and work in Germany, he can arrange for his family to come the normal way, a boat or a plane and he will have the financial means to accomplish it.


How does a peasant from a backward village know the state of things all over the Eastern hemisphere? And it seems that any of those places are better than Syria, so he is supposed to dash for the first safer corner, not to speculate on picking the choiciest nook.

Some of them do. The rest is seeing what those who do know choose as their destination and follow suit.

And, more importantly, not everybody is moving to Europe. There's three times more refugees in Turkey than in all of Europe combined.

[Greyblades]

Not anymore that it would with a million of other people.
...seriously? After all we've seen happen in Paris and Cologne you still believe that?

[Sarmatian]

...seriously? After all we've seen happen in Paris and Cologne you still believe that?

Terrorism is a threat and it will remain a threat regardless of refugees.

Terrorists are recruited from poor and uneducated people. You will never see an oil baron blow himself up. Now imagine how many more terrorists can be recruited if you return a million people to Syria, where they will struggle to acquire even basic necessities, will have no chance at getting an education and basically will have no future. How hard would it be to brainwash those people and make terrorists out of them? Not very much.

[Greyblades]

Except you wont be getting anywhere near the amount of terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be narly as succeptable to brainwashing.

[Fragony]

Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so

@Sarmatarian

[Sarmatian]

Except you wont be getting any terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be succeptable to brainwashing.

?


Usually not that poor and uneducated, you are underestimating them if you think so

@Sarmatarian

Not those who plan and finance, those who execute. Almost all of them have little prospects in life.

[Fragony]

Not those who plan and finance, those who execute. Almost all of them have little prospects in life.

They usually do, almost all terrorists who did a lot of harm were students and lead a western life. There is no basis for the assumption that they were just dissapointed.

I also think we should see incidents like in Germany seperatily.

[Pannonian]

Except you wont be getting anywhere near the amount of terrorists from non muslim/middle east immigrants. Nor would they be narly as succeptable to brainwashing.

Most of the non-Muslim terrorists that we have share at least some degree of common values with normal society. Nowhere near the same sort of relish in targeting the weak, for instance. After Omagh, the worst of the Troubles-related atrocities, RIRA turned away from further civilian targeting. In contrast, Islamists have progressively turned up the level of outrage they commit, gloating and gaining support with each atrocity they commit. In terms of mentality, they bear comparison with the worst of the 20th century monsters, who are similarly alien to our society. Unlike them, Islamists are looking to commit their atrocities in our countries. And unlike then, liberal values are too firmly ingrained in our society to allow such measures as general internment. Heck, even profiling is likely to raise protests about a police state.

[Greyblades]

?

Lets go step by step.

Gilrandir said: "their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants"
You said: "Not anymore that it would with a million of other people."
Finally I said: a million other people would indeed be safer for a nation to recieve than muslims/middle easterners as they would not bring with them terrorists and sympathisers.

[Sarmatian]

Lets go step by step.

Gilrandir said: "their country is becomoing more unsafe with the advent of immigrants"
You said: "Not anymore that it would with a million of other people."
Finally I said: a million other people would indeed be safer for a nation to recieve than muslims/middle easterners as they would not bring with them terrorists and sympathisers.

Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.

Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.

[Pannonian]

Yes, I did understand it after re-reading it, but thanks.

Most probably true, but sending them back isn't necessarily the better option for safety. They may be recruited by terrorists, join ISIS/some other militant group, prolong the conflict. It would reinforce the animosity toward the west, provide that injustice/indignation/easily definable target that are also very important aspects of terrorism.

Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us? The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism? If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".

[Shaka_Khan]

In every single culture across the world, throughout history, it is the responsibility of the guest to show extra courtesy whilst in the home of the hosts. The exception is when the incomer is a conqueror. It's why English football fans have been reviled/possibly are still reviled abroad. Multiply this by quite a few times for the current situation. It's in no way the fault of the hosts, however much you may wish to paint it so.
The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

[Greyblades]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

[Pannonian]

The fact is that the crimes are happening. You don't sit still just because you expect everyone to behave.
"It's they're fault so I don't have to do anything about it."

Is that supposed to be an argument for actively bringing in a demographic that has a recent and active history of troublemaking? Syrians are Syrians because they're from Syria. That means they have no special claim on us. We have no particular obligation towards them. If we do anything for them, it's a favour. If they want more than that, then they can ask for it from someone else as we wash our hands of them. If they want aid, then we can make an offer, and they can make a reciprocal accommodation. If they don't like it because it's not ideal, then they can hold out for a better offer from someone else.

[Husar]

We are doing something about it: we're not letting them in.

http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

Aspiring to the old days of empire building, slave trade and collective punishment again. And this from the people who claim their bill of rights and stuff were groundbreaking in enlightenment and human rights matters. :no:

[Greyblades]

Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.


The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.

[Montmorency]

The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.


This is one of the most pernicious misconceptions in the situation. The problem reached its current level long before any public "invitations" were made, and the borders were opened decades ago; it is only over the past half-year that they have been growing more closed.

[Greyblades]

Actually I was not referring to any official invitation, the schengen agreement itself is an open invitation to any who seeks anywhere between a place to build a better life to a chance at a free lunch.

Internal open borders with some of the worlds greatest welfare states and an external border more porous than swiss cheese (hyperbole), it is a wonder this level of abuse took so long to occur.

[Fragony]

This is one of the most pernicious misconceptions in the situation. The problem reached its current level long before any public "invitations" were made, and the borders were opened decades ago; it is only over the past half-year that they have been growing more closed.

That is simply not true, immigrants from north africa yes, but from the middle-east no. It's because Merkel decided to pubicly ignore the Dublin-treaty.

[Sarmatian]

Why would we be an easily definable target when they don't get the chance to experience special attention from us?

"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"

Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.


The most focused current threat, apart from the social problems which are another discussion altogether, are homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria, who are smuggled back into the EU, undetected within a mass of unprocessed refugees. If any of the traitorous scumbags who made their way to Syria want to slip back into the UK, I want them easily identifiable before they do anything, not hidden within thousands of "Syrians".

Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.


That's the known modus operandi. Why are you arguing that letting yet more unprocessed refugees into the EU would help solve the problem of Islamist terrorism?

I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.

[Pannonian]

"You see now what's happening. They bomb us, they start wars. They tell us it is because of our leaders, not us. They love us. Now you've seen what they think of us. They've treated you like an animal, and sent you back. They don't want you there, they hate you. They hate all of us, they want to kill us. They are the devil. Do you want to strike back at them? Do you want to hurt them?"

Sending males in their prime back to a war zone where there is precious little to do is a bad idea. ISIS and its like provide just about the only opportunity of employment. Food, shelter, even a small salary and your family gets protection.

Homegrowns already have an EU passport and little need to mix with the refugees.

I didn't say it would solve it, I said it wouldn't make it worse, and it could even help in the long run.

And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.

[Fragony]

Things don't have be complicated, they can go but can't come back. Soon the high-court of Germany is going to decide that Merkel's immigration-policy is against the German consitution, the lawsuit is already in the works, and Merkel will be nuttering 'wir schaffen das wir schaffen das' with a wet cloth on her forehead. Damage is done sadly.

[Sarmatian]

And yet that was the modus operandi of the Paris attackers, who were French-born. Presumably they thought the police would be onto them instantly should they return openly.

For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.

But, it contradicts what you said earlier.


homegrowns who have been radicalised in Syria,

If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.

Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?

[Pannonian]

For some, yes. Although it appears the two ringleaders were never in Syria.

But, it contradicts what you said earlier.



If they were on the police radar, it means they were radicalized before they went to Syria, not in Syria.

Even if we assume that their time in Syria was instrumental in the planning and pulling off the Paris attacks, is it really safer to send back to Syria a few hundred thousand males?

They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments. In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them. Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead. If there are going to be further guilt arguments about why EU states aren't doing all they can for the migrants they host, let's forestall all this by stopping the migrants in the first place. Let them complain about inadequate state aid elsewhere.

BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.

[Fragony]

Your AFAIK is correct. According to the Dublin treaty refugees must register in the first save country of entry in the Schengen-zone. Merkel isn't just ignoring Germany's constitution but also the EU (fuck you) law. Older childless women can do weird things. Germoney schafft sich af (pun intended)

[Sarmatian]

They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

- If they are processed and distributed around Europe, it can be used to "plug holes" where needed, and assure they aren't concentrated but distributed evenly.

- Besides a few profiles (chemical and electrical engineers, doctors), EU doesn't have much need for highly educated workers ATM. There is a demand for skilled workers, like craftsmen and cooks, which refugees could fill, with little investment in their training.

- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

- It is a humane thing to do.


In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them.

Maybe in the short term.


Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead.

I never said they should be absolved from blame. By all means, those who break the rules should be dealt with accordingly. I had issue with blaming a million people for the actions of 5, 50 or 500.


BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.

Following the rules to the letter would be counterproductive in this case. Secondly, EU countries have been letting them through, which they shouldn't have.
Thirdly, even if it were possible to keep a million people in Greece, it would collapse the country and bring much greater damage to EU and Europe as a whole than refugees.

[Fragony]

There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.

[Viking]

http://www.thenation.com/article/european-countries-closing-their-borders-to-refugees-is-collective-punishment/

Aspiring to the old days of empire building, slave trade and collective punishment again. And this from the people who claim their bill of rights and stuff were groundbreaking in enlightenment and human rights matters. :no:

It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.


- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.


- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.


- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards (http://www.cgdev.org/blog/think-development-poor-countries-will-reduce-migration-numbers-say-otherwise).


- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.

[Husar]

Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.

That's complete bullhonkey on so many levels:
1) "Days of", although PVC does want the days of roman empire building back, or british ones if he can't get the romans I assume. Slave trade is what happens when you close the borders and desperate people go to smugglers.

2) You and Pannonian were arguing to close the borders and send everyone back because some of them might be terrorists or did I misread something? You're still on "your side of the channel" I assume.

3) What is "my side of the channel"? Spain to China? What are you talking about? We both live in "our EU"!


The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.

The mess was already in Greece and Italy before Germany invited anyone. These countries were calling for help for quite a while but Britain did and still does not want to help. With friends like these...


It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.

The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

[Sarmatian]

There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.

Ok. Let's go with the first one.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.




Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it
2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains


It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.


Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.


For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.


There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards (http://www.cgdev.org/blog/think-development-poor-countries-will-reduce-migration-numbers-say-otherwise).

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.


In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.

It's short term vs. long term security.

[Pannonian]

Ok. Let's go with the first one.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it
2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains

Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.

It's short term vs. long term security.

I'd rather have eastern Europeans than middle easterners, if there is a need for net migration. We share more common values, and none of them have called on Britain to implement post-Yugoslav, Romanian, Polish, etc. laws to suit their sensibilities. They assume that the onus is on them to adapt to the host society, not the other way round. And we don't have an endemic problem with eastern European terrorism.

[Sarmatian]

I'd rather have eastern Europeans than middle easterners, if there is a need for net migration. We share more common values, and none of them have called on Britain to implement post-Yugoslav, Romanian, Polish, etc. laws to suit their sensibilities. They assume that the onus is on them to adapt to the host society, not the other way round. And we don't have an endemic problem with eastern European terrorism.

Eastern Europeans don't really have to adapt at all, that's the difference. The biggest issue would be figuring out the rules of cricket. That is worth blowing something up.

They also wouldn't suffer from a bias (ok, they would, but to a much lesser extent). If some start voting Labour, it would be assumed that it is their choice. There wouldn't be an outcry of those dirty eastern commies coming to ruin our precious capitalist UK, aside from maybe a few right wing nut jobs no one would take seriously.

But, answer me this, please. Let's say I apply for job in UK and get it. I spend 10 years in UK, figure out I like it there and apply for citizenship and get it. A year from that there's a referendum on the monarchy. I would have the legal right, but would I have the moral right to vote on that referendum?

[Fragony]

What do you think yourselve on that

[Pannonian]

Eastern Europeans don't really have to adapt at all, that's the difference. The biggest issue would be figuring out the rules of cricket. That is worth blowing something up.

They also wouldn't suffer from a bias (ok, they would, but to a much lesser extent). If some start voting Labour, it would be assumed that it is their choice. There wouldn't be an outcry of those dirty eastern commies coming to ruin our precious capitalist UK, aside from maybe a few right wing nut jobs no one would take seriously.

But, answer me this, please. Let's say I apply for job in UK and get it. I spend 10 years in UK, figure out I like it there and apply for citizenship and get it. A year from that there's a referendum on the monarchy. I would have the legal right, but would I have the moral right to vote on that referendum?

If they don't really have to adapt at all, then isn't it all the better? It solves the problem you pose of an ageing population, and the intake doesn't need to adapt. Of all those I've met, I've also not met one who's talked lovingly of their previous homes, and wanting to bring their previous life into this present one. Quite the contrary. And if they want to vote Labour or any other mainstream political party, that's their choice too (when they eventually gain the right to vote). I'd be happy too if UK Muslims debate the health service and means of funding it. That's standard British political discourse. I'm not happy when they raise a racket about bringing in Sharia, or other elements of a foreign state. If their loyalty is to another state, they can go to it.

On the last bit, you sound like you have higher standards than me. Anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. I care not what they do with the vote. If you're loyal to the idea of Britain, then that's as much Britishness as I can demand of you.

[Sarmatian]

What do you think yourselve on that

You need to start debunking those points. We haven't moved passed the first, yet.


If they don't really have to adapt at all, then isn't it all the better? It solves the problem you pose of an ageing population, and the intake doesn't need to adapt.

Does it? What happens with those eastern European countries? There's no youth bulge there, they have the same problem as the rest of Europe. It only intensifies the problem there, and what happens in one part of Europe affects the entire continent.


Of all those I've met, I've also not met one who's talked lovingly of their previous homes, and wanting to bring their previous life into this present one. Quite the contrary. And if they want to vote Labour or any other mainstream political party, that's their choice too (when they eventually gain the right to vote). I'd be happy too if UK Muslims debate the health service and means of funding it. That's standard British political discourse. I'm not happy when they raise a racket about bringing in Sharia, or other elements of a foreign state. If their loyalty is to another state, they can go to it.

On the last bit, you sound like you have higher standards than me. Anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. I care not what they do with the vote. If you're loyal to the idea of Britain, then that's as much Britishness as I can demand of you.

But what is the idea of Britain? To some, the idea of Britain is tied to the idea of monarchy. After I gain the citizenship, how much can I "change" Britain before I cross the line? Is that line at the same place for me and for the Duke of Norfolk?

[Pannonian]

You need to start debunking those points. We haven't moved passed the first, yet.

Does it? What happens with those eastern European countries? There's no youth bulge there, they have the same problem as the rest of Europe. It only intensifies the problem there, and what happens in one part of Europe affects the entire continent.

But what is the idea of Britain? To some, the idea of Britain is tied to the idea of monarchy. After I gain the citizenship, how much can I "change" Britain before I cross the line? Is that line at the same place for me and for the Duke of Norfolk?

You seek to fudge a line where the line is bloody clear for Islamists. Britain doesn't ask much of its people to be considered satisfactorily British. There is quite some degree of latitude in political disagreement that the identity allow. What Islamists do is distance themselves as much from this identity as they can. There are those who actively fight against Britain. In previous times, they would have been hanged or shot for treason. Then there are those who cheer them on. In previous times they would have been interned as a threat to the country's security.

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

[Fragony]

You need to start debunking those points. We haven't moved passed the first, yet.



Does it? What happens with those eastern European countries? There's no youth bulge there, they have the same problem as the rest of Europe. It only intensifies the problem there, and what happens in one part of Europe affects the entire continent.



But what is the idea of Britain? To some, the idea of Britain is tied to the idea of monarchy. After I gain the citizenship, how much can I "change" Britain before I cross the line? Is that line at the same place for me and for the Duke of Norfolk?

Ask directly and I will deliver, not dancing any tango on staccato

[Pannonian]

As a marker of how distinct the line is that Sarmatian is trying to legalistically fuzz, ISIS told a son to execute his own mother for urging him to leave the state. Anyone who supports such a state is in no way satisfactorily British, no matter how anyone tries to fudge the line and equate them with us.

[Fragony]

As a marker of how distinct the line is that Sarmatian is trying to legalistically fuzz, ISIS told a son to execute his own mother for urging him to leave the state. Anyone who supports such a state is in no way satisfactorily British, no matter how anyone tries to fudge the line and equate them with us.

Kinda rediculous to assume Samartarian supports or excuses that

I don't like rap but kinda reminds me of this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8yKTuvRmPE

[Kralizec]

Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

[Fragony]

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

^ there goes first one, adieu

there was a second on your list Sarmatarian. And many more

[Gilrandir]

It wasn't safe before either, but noone cared. There were hand grenade attacks between rivalling biker gangs, mass gatherings of said biker gangs with huge police protection, human trafficking at a huge scale, mafia executions in cities, professional eastern european burglar gangs that would rob homes during broad daylight, mafia families from the balkans and levant that owned entire streets, engaged in drug trafficking and had feuds with each other openly on the streets and yet we kept electing Merkel and friends over and over who saved us so much money by reducing police budgets...

WHY DO YOU KEEP LIVING IN SUCH A HORRIBLE PLACE????

But one can hardly deny that such an unsafe country turned into yet unsafer.



No, because once he's settled in and legally allowed to live and work in Germany, he can arrange for his family to come the normal way, a boat or a plane and he will have the financial means to accomplish it.


Most of them seem to intend to live on social payments which rules out the financial means to bring the family in. And if they do it would be another strain for the country's budgets.



Some of them do. The rest is seeing what those who do know choose as their destination and follow suit.

Sounds like a mindless herd following an ill-informed guide. There should be some informational campaign to divert the stream elsewhere.


- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.


It seems like Europe must choose between what it MIGHT have economy-wise and what it IS HAVING security-wise.


-
- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries


It is not about religion, it is about security and value gap.


Kinda rediculous to assume Samartarian supports or excuses that


I suggest holding a contest on the most ridiculous distortion of Sarmatian's name. So far we have Sarmation and Samartarian. Any more ideas?

[Husar]

WHY DO YOU KEEP LIVING IN SUCH A HORRIBLE PLACE????

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

[Viking]

The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.



Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it


Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (http://www.thelocal.no/20120319/norways-population-hits-five-million) (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.


In recent years, two thirds of Norway’s population growth has stemmed from an increase in immigration, while a third of the increase comes from more babies being born, Statistics Norway said.


2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains

It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.


Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.

If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.


All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.

This is simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-24/-no-crisis-norway-holds-talks-on-economic-cost-of-oil-s-plunge) here.


Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.

Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.


It's short term vs. long term security.

The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.

[Gilrandir]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Do you always do what wicked foreigners say?

[Gilrandir]

Merkel says refugees aren't to stay:
http://www.trtworld.com/europe/germanys-merkel-says-refugees-will-go-back-after-war-ends-37733

[Husar]

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Ugh, that's so wrong. There are a number of reasons shops are closed at night, one is the law, which is there to protect workers so they can't be forced to work all night. Another reason many shops close early is simply that they don't get a lot of customers at night and the costs would outweigh the income.

As for security being the reason, that's such a lame excuse. If a chance of maybe ten in a million warrants heavy restrictions for everyone, then we will have to change a whole lot of other things for our security. Besides, we already have surveillance of especially all our electronic communication, why is it so hard to find the 5 terrorists among all these cellphone-using refugees?
Now we do not only need full surveillance, we also need a new Berlin wall. Nothing could possibly go wrong...
Be afraid, don't let the terrorists terrorize you, just be afraid all the time. :dizzy2:


Do you always do what wicked foreigners say?

Lol, and how then can one expect all the Syrian refugees to stay out of our countries and not try to get in by all means?

[Greyblades]

That's complete bullhonkey on so many levels:
1) "Days of", although PVC does want the days of roman empire building back, or british ones if he can't get the romans I assume. Slave trade is what happens when you close the borders and desperate people go to smugglers. I wasnt expecting anything and still you dissapoint.

I expect you will now attempt to explain how the smugglers are devoid of agency and thus thier actions are entirely our responsibility, not thier own.


2) You and Pannonian were arguing to close the borders and send everyone back because some of them might be terrorists or did I misread something? You're still on "your side of the channel" I assume.Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide. The culture clash and the terrorist infiltration is just an extra layer of nope but the only point that anyone here are willing to fail at attempting to discredit.


3) What is "my side of the channel"? Spain to China? What are you talking about? We both live in "our EU"!It's your people beating up and bombing the immigrants not mine, or is the collective punisment you speak of not the retaliation for paris and cologne, as your article defines it, but reffering to the idea that we were going to let all of them in if not for the pesky terrorists?


The mess was already in Greece and Italy before Germany invited anyone. These countries were calling for help for quite a while but Britain did and still does not want to help. With friends like these... Yes and we all know how eager the germans were to render aid, out of the goodness of thier hearts and no strings attatched.

With friends like these indeed.


The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

Punishment requires inflicting penalties or taking away something from someone for thier actions, whereas we werent going to give them access in the first place.

[Viking]

Ugh, that's so wrong. There are a number of reasons shops are closed at night, one is the law, which is there to protect workers so they can't be forced to work all night. Another reason many shops close early is simply that they don't get a lot of customers at night and the costs would outweigh the income.

I didn't say that they where closed, but locked (i.e. the employees have all left). If I suddenly felt a strong urge to look at a real ananas right now and the stores are closed, and I don't have any ananasses here; I would have a problem. But the store is not locked as it is closed as a punishment for any potential ananas thieves; it's just a security measure.


As for security being the reason, that's such a lame excuse. If a chance of maybe ten in a million warrants heavy restrictions for everyone, then we will have to change a whole lot of other things for our security. Besides, we already have surveillance of especially all our electronic communication, why is it so hard to find the 5 terrorists among all these cellphone-using refugees?
Now we do not only need full surveillance, we also need a new Berlin wall. Nothing could possibly go wrong...

Except this reasoning is fallacious. You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

"There is no point in not smoking if I don't have at least five different types of vegetables for dinner tomorrow."


Be afraid, don't let the terrorists terrorize you, just be afraid all the time. :dizzy2:

There's no need to invoke emotions; these kinds of analyses can be done entirely without them.

[Sarmatian]

You seek to fudge a line where the line is bloody clear for Islamists. Britain doesn't ask much of its people to be considered satisfactorily British. There is quite some degree of latitude in political disagreement that the identity allow. What Islamists do is distance themselves as much from this identity as they can. There are those who actively fight against Britain. In previous times, they would have been hanged or shot for treason. Then there are those who cheer them on. In previous times they would have been interned as a threat to the country's security.

The line is fudged. What is acceptable to you (an eastern European who recently acquired UK citizenship voting against the monarchy) would be sacrilegious to some British, who would use similar reasoning you applied to migrants - not one of us, not a good guest, no respect for the country he came to etc, etc...

So, yes, there is a line, but it is on a different place for different people.



This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

But, even though I may not appear like it, I'm not very "liberal" in that regard. I don't believe in multiculturalism, and I would make sure every effort is taken that immigrants integrate into society, and that would be the highest priority, even if it meant suspending some of their civil rights for a certain time.

It's just that I never had the chance to speak about it, because I never got past "muslim darkies = bad" here.


As a marker of how distinct the line is that Sarmatian is trying to legalistically fuzz, ISIS told a son to execute his own mother for urging him to leave the state. Anyone who supports such a state is in no way satisfactorily British, no matter how anyone tries to fudge the line and equate them with us.

And this is SO not my point.


The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.


^ there goes first one, adieu

there was a second on your list Sarmatarian. And many more

That is not a debunk, that is an arbitrarily and subjectively made conclusion without any numbers to support it, and without taking into consideration how much of an effect they have, even if their employment rates are lower than employment rates of host country youth.

That was for Krazilec.

For Frags - Make an effort, dude. You're not a child, don't hide behind other people. I want to see you debunking it.


We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Blimey, it feels like I'm playing a simul here.


Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (http://www.thelocal.no/20120319/norways-population-hits-five-million) (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.

Of course it is increasing. It was increasing in China during one child policy. People live longer. When they live longer they put much greater burden state finances through pensions and health insurance. We can't kill them off early, so other actions are taken to balance the budget, both short and long term. Hence, immigration.


It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.

It will ruin state finances and cause social upheavals, conflicts and revolutions. Then it will pass. Other actions are taken in conjunction with it, like people having to work longer, which caused a massive unrest in France a few years back. It will take time and delicate touch and immigration is the only solution for the immediate future, like the next several decades. Even in the best case, it will be needed sporadically later.


If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

This isn't Civilization. Growth is now based on various economic factors, not on ability to grow food locally. Food is cheap, transporting it is cheap and it is plentiful.

But, situations change. A few years ago, Syria was ok. Then there were drought that started an unrest, which turned into an upheaval which grew to open war. And suddenly a country can't support it's population, so a lot of join the various armed groups, some hunker down and hope for the best and some try to emigrate.


This is simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-24/-no-crisis-norway-holds-talks-on-economic-cost-of-oil-s-plunge) here.

You're equating overall situation with situation in specific areas. Unemployment is on the rise in Norway, yet there is still not enough nurses.


Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.

Possibly.

Let's not kid ourselves. Situations change. Economic prospects of areas change. People will follow those trends, and if the change is big enough or rapid enough, we will get in a situation like this again. It will be very hard and sometimes impossible to stop that.


The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.

Really? I'd like to see numbers on that. How many muslims are there in Europe and how many have been involved in terrorist activities.

[Fragony]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Nobody is screaming. So normal.

[Beskar]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-masked-men-beat-refugee-children-in-stockholm-a6843451.html

It seems that those who are outraged by immigrants have decided that they themselves should be dealing with the problem... by putting on masks and beating up refugee children.

Whilst it seems acceptable to point fingers at incidents which go against the grain of our society by those deemed 'outsiders', things are always shushed when we have a look at the natives acting like the barbaric animals they can be.

I don't think acts of violence are isolated into groups labelled as being on the "outside".

[Husar]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-masked-men-beat-refugee-children-in-stockholm-a6843451.html

It seems that those who are outraged by immigrants have decided that they themselves should be dealing with the problem... by putting on masks and beating up refugee children.

Whilst it seems acceptable to point fingers at incidents which go against the grain of our society by those deemed 'outsiders', things are always shushed when we have a look at the natives acting like the barbaric animals they can be.

I don't think acts of violence are isolated into groups labelled as being on the "outside".

Happened in Germany as well of course, apparently the super fast blogs some people read do not cover that too much however.
In fact, last time I looked it was hard to find a concrete link, especially in English.
There was however something about a 13 year-old girl from northern Africa who got beaten up by brave defenders of the fatherland.
Not to mention the hundreds of total attacks on immigrant housing etc.

[Fragony]

Seems to be happening more lately, hope they get caught, this is not the way

[Husar]

I expect you will now attempt to explain how the smugglers are devoid of agency and thus thier actions are entirely our responsibility, not thier own.

If they are "our" smugglers, they are as much our responsibility as the terrorists are the refugees' responsibility.


Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide. The culture clash and the terrorist infiltration is just an extra layer of nope but the only point that anyone here are willing to fail at attempting to discredit.

You also have an economic downturn if your demographics go bottom up, Sarmatian already covered that.


It's your people beating up and bombing the immigrants not mine, or is the collective punisment you speak of not the retaliation for paris and cologne, as your article defines it, but reffering to the idea that we were going to let all of them in if not for the pesky terrorists?

Indeed, your country only messed up the creation of their nation states and caused a large chunk of the current mess in the first place. Who invaded Iraq again? Not us.
And Pannonian did argue not to let them in because of terrorist attacks, no? Is he French now? Didn't you basically say the same thing? Oh wait, you just did.
What the governments do was not part of my argument, I was commenting on your arguments.


Yes and we all know how eager the germans were to render aid, out of the goodness of thier hearts and no strings attatched.

We let them in, didn't we?


Punishment requires inflicting penalties or taking away something from someone for thier actions, whereas we werent going to give them access in the first place.

You're taking away their right to flee to a safer place, their freedom of movement. You know, the one they had before you told them to stay and wait until ISIS come to behead them. If you are not going to help anyone in need because you are afraid that they may destroy your good christian values, I'd advise you to check your christians values again.


I didn't say that they where closed, but locked (i.e. the employees have all left). If I suddenly felt a strong urge to look at a real ananas right now and the stores are closed, and I don't have any ananasses here; I would have a problem. But the store is not locked as it is closed as a punishment for any potential ananas thieves; it's just a security measure.

Even if the store is not locked yet closed, you still aren't allowed to buy an ananas (i.e. you'd still be "punished"), your argument makes no sense.


Except this reasoning is fallacious. You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

Then why not start with the most urgent ones?
And why solve it in the most hamfisted, xenophobic way instead of using far better methods to weed out the undesirables?

[Greyblades]

Looks like PVC has earned an "I told you so":


Germany is edging closer to a Pogrom and this whole mess could have been avoided if they had just started flying people back to their country of origin.

[Husar]

Putting a bunch of aggressive males into an airplane didn't end too well in Conair though. ~;)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-masked-men-beat-refugee-children-in-stockholm-a6843451.html

It seems that those who are outraged by immigrants have decided that they themselves should be dealing with the problem... by putting on masks and beating up refugee children.

Whilst it seems acceptable to point fingers at incidents which go against the grain of our society by those deemed 'outsiders', things are always shushed when we have a look at the natives acting like the barbaric animals they can be.

I don't think acts of violence are isolated into groups labelled as being on the "outside".

Targeting children for beatings to send a political "message" isn't different enough from slitting throats on a Libyan beach to send a political "message" to make me think well of them. Of course, one is less at risk from a "hulking" 12-year-old, so I suppose that inspires bravery.

:shame:

[Greyblades]

If they are "our" smugglers, they are as much our responsibility as the terrorists are the refugees' responsibility.At best it is our responsibility to stop them, and that is it, it doesnt mean we are responsible for thier appearance.


You also have an economic downturn if your demographics go bottom up, Sarmatian already covered that. A predicted issue that is not affecting us now but which we were happily solving by having a controlled influx of various eastern europeans.

Letting in the muslim horde right now would lead to problems much more immediate and severe than an aging population.


Indeed, your country only messed up the creation of their nation statesI dare say the people who did that are all dead by now.


and caused a large chunk of the current mess in the first place. Who invaded Iraq again? Not us. Who let thier country turn into an islamic extremist hellhole despite us giving them ample resources and training to prevent it? Not us.


And Pannonian did argue not to let them in because of terrorist attacks, no? Is he French now? Didn't you basically say the same thing? Oh wait, you just did.Did I deny agreeing with him? Did you prove him wrong? Am I Pannonian now?


What the governments do was not part of my argument, I was commenting on your arguments. If we arent talking about governments then this whole thing falls apart. I can only be considered responsible for the last year and a half of british foreign policy, and extremely tangentally at that.


We let them in, didn't we?I was reffering to the greeks not the immigrants.


You're taking away their right to flee to a safer place, their freedom of movement. You know, the one they had before you told them to stay and wait until ISIS come to behead them. If you are not going to help anyone in need because you are afraid that they may destroy your good christian values, I'd advise you to check your christians values again. They were safe in turkey, moving on from there was their decision and freedom of transit is not a human right.

[Pannonian]

The line is fudged. What is acceptable to you (an eastern European who recently acquired UK citizenship voting against the monarchy) would be sacrilegious to some British, who would use similar reasoning you applied to migrants - not one of us, not a good guest, no respect for the country he came to etc, etc...

So, yes, there is a line, but it is on a different place for different people.

But, even though I may not appear like it, I'm not very "liberal" in that regard. I don't believe in multiculturalism, and I would make sure every effort is taken that immigrants integrate into society, and that would be the highest priority, even if it meant suspending some of their civil rights for a certain time.

It's just that I never had the chance to speak about it, because I never got past "muslim darkies = bad" here.

And this is SO not my point.

The line is only fudged for those who really want to see it that way. The majority may not be able to agree on what Britishness is. But the majority can certainly agree on what anti-Britishness is. ISIS is the antithesis of Britishness. We see no positives in them. Anyone who supports them is not what I would call British in values. And anyone who looks to excuse those who support them is for me an apologist.

[Gilrandir]

Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide.



According to Sarmatian, if you have shortages in jobs and housing it means you have let too few immigrants in.

[wooly_mammoth]

Are you certain they were children-children and not primitives in their 30s claiming to be 12? If it's the latter type of "children" (I understand they are quite common in Sweden), I'm really glad they got into physical contact with someone of their own size and strength.

[Fragony]

Are you certain they were children-children and not primitives in their 30s claiming to be 12? If it's the latter type of "children" (I understand they are quite common in Sweden), I'm really glad they got into physical contact with someone of their own size and strength.

You can certainly see the difference between a 13 year old girl and a grown woman, but I know what you are hinting at. A lot of underaged aren't underage at all and have fake identities.

Also wonder where the pics with evidence of assault are, media would have used them for boohoohoo

[Sarmatian]

Why?

If there were no children, it excuses what they did?

Come on, this deserves at least 50 posts from you Frags. A "throng" of adult males thought it was ok to beat up other people because they are different. It was organized and deliberate. You threw a fit over children of the childless mutti attacking people in Cologne. Where's the outrage now? Just "it's no ok." and "maybe it's a conspiracy, there are no photos" ?

[Fragony]

Why?

If there were no children, it excuses what they did?

Come on, this deserves at least 50 posts from you Frags. A "throng" of adult males thought it was ok to beat up other people because they are different. It was organized and deliberate. You threw a fit over children of the childless mutti attacking people in Cologne. Where's the outrage now? Just "it's no ok." and "maybe it's a conspiracy, there are no photos" ?

What makes you think I think it's ok, but I am naturally suspicious. If it's actually true that a 13 year old girl was beaten up by a group of skins there would be more journalists on her story and broken face than flies on a turd. Without saying it never happened I smell bull on this one. It usually is.

Not denying that there have been attacks.

[Sarmatian]

What makes you think I think it's ok, but I am naturally suspicious. If it's actually true that a 13 year old girl was beaten up by a group of skins there would be more journalists on her story and broken face than flies on a turd. Without saying it never happened I smell bull on this one. It usually is.

Not denying that there have been attacks.

You focus more on whether there was a child in there than on the event itself. Hundreds of adult males attacked and beaten up people, without provocation. It wasn't spontaneus, it wasn't random.

Last time it happened, you declared that a million people should be barred entry and sent home. What are we supposed to do now?

[rajpoot]

How could the governments not see this coming. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants thronging into Europe at a time when anti-Islamic sentiment is bubbling like a pot on high heat, thanks to ISIS and whatever other homegrown terrorists keep popping up all around the globe....
The fact that it took so much time for these incidents to gain momentum is the real surprise to me.
And if I'm any judge this is only the beginning.

[Husar]

Picture?

Warning: Somewhat graphic, possibly more so if you have children yourself.

17453

http://www.bild.de/regional/chemnitz/angriff/wisdal-von-nazi-bande-in-klinik-getreten-44075952.bild.html

[Fragony]

You focus more on whether there was a child in there than on the event itself. Hundreds of adult males attacked and beaten up people, without provocation. It wasn't spontaneus, it wasn't random.

Last time it happened, you declared that a million people should be barred entry and sent home. What are we supposed to do now?

First, what you say simply isn't true. There have been attacks yes but not on that scale, that's a big thumb you are sucking on. Second, also simply not true because I never said such a thing. Two very big thumbs.

edit, I agree with Rajjput, it doesn't surprise me at all either.

edit hussie I stand corrected

[Husar]

First, what you say simply isn't true. There have been attacks yes but not on that scale, that's a big thumb you are sucking on. Second, also simply not true because I never said such a thing. Two very big thumbs.

The attacks on immigrants in Germany range in the hundreds, maybe each one of a smaller scale than Cologne but all together a huge deal. I would even assume that most of the immigrants who do get attacked are the innocent kind, often students, children, women. You hardly hear that someone from the lebanese mafia was attacked by neo nazis, they'd rather beat pregnant women:

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article3194263/Schwangere-Brasilianerin-von-Neonazis-gequaelt.html

There you go, Switzerland, I thought they don't let many immigrants in, so what's their excuse?

[Fragony]

The attacks on immigrants in Germany range in the hundreds, maybe each one of a smaller scale than Cologne but all together a huge deal. I would even assume that most of the immigrants who do get attacked are the innocent kind, often students, children, women. You hardly hear that someone from the lebanese mafia was attacked by neo nazis, they'd rather beat pregnant women:

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article3194263/Schwangere-Brasilianerin-von-Neonazis-gequaelt.html


There you go, Switzerland, I thought they don't let many immigrants in, so what's their excuse?

Zurich also had their problems at NYE as well but there is never an excuse to behave like that. But don't pretend as if it is a razzia of some sorts. It's something everybody could have seen comming, now that the attitude towards immigrants has changed after the mibehaviour particulary in Collogne there is going to be more of this. As always the wrong people are on the receiving end.

[Husar]

Zurich also had their problems at NYE as well but there is never an excuse to behave like that. But don't pretend as if it is a razzia of some sorts. It's something everybody could have seen comming, now that the attitude towards immigrants has changed after the mibehaviour particulary in Collogne there is going to be more of this. As always the wrong people are on the receiving end.

There were previously reports about nazi groups hunting people down and beating or even killing them. It is indeed not surprising that there is more of it now. But bowing to nazi demands and giving these thugs what they want cannot be a solution, I heard apeasement does not work anyway.

[Fragony]

There were previously reports about nazi groups hunting people down and beating or even killing them. It is indeed not surprising that there is more of it now. But bowing to nazi demands and giving these thugs what they want cannot be a solution, I heard apeasement does not work anyway.

Heard that as well. I don't disagree with you, such attacks must be stopped with all means possible imho. Not just because you just don't attack innocent people unless you are a psychopath, but also that I as a decent opposer of immigration don't want to be associated with such things. I fully understand that there is a major vica versa to that but I never spoke ill of nice behaving immigrants, these neo-nazi's are as welcome as the inquisition for violentless opposition to idiotic policy.

[Viking]

Of course it is increasing. It was increasing in China during one child policy. People live longer. When they live longer they put much greater burden state finances through pensions and health insurance. We can't kill them off early, so other actions are taken to balance the budget, both short and long term. Hence, immigration.


Except it may continue to grow well beyond 2100 (http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkfram/aar/2014-06-17).


It will ruin state finances and cause social upheavals, conflicts and revolutions. Then it will pass. Other actions are taken in conjunction with it, like people having to work longer, which caused a massive unrest in France a few years back. It will take time and delicate touch and immigration is the only solution for the immediate future, like the next several decades. Even in the best case, it will be needed sporadically later.


France's problems are France's own. The ironic thing is that some of the worst riots in France were by non-Westeren immigrants.


This isn't Civilization. Growth is now based on various economic factors, not on ability to grow food locally. Food is cheap, transporting it is cheap and it is plentiful.

But, situations change. A few years ago, Syria was ok. Then there were drought that started an unrest, which turned into an upheaval which grew to open war. And suddenly a country can't support it's population, so a lot of join the various armed groups, some hunker down and hope for the best and some try to emigrate.

This is beside the point. There is an upper limit on resources that no amount of trade can circumvent. The greater the global population, the closer you are to this limit.

If you free up some space in a country, it is likely to indirectly encourage more reproduction, since conditions are less harsh now than they would have been if none had emigrated.

If people either did not or could not emigrate, the local population would reach the ceiling that it can not pass sooner. This would give a lower global population as well, since the populations of the other countries had already reached their maximum values, even without resource shortages. With the emigration from the surplus countries to the other countries, the populations in all countries can grow in parallel towards the global ceiling.


You're equating overall situation with situation in specific areas. Unemployment is on the rise in Norway, yet there is still not enough nurses.

We cannot expect that non-Western immigrants will have an ideal ratio of nurses among them (or even that their nurse education is immediately applicable here); which can in turn lead to a further increase in unemployment.


Possibly.

Let's not kid ourselves. Situations change. Economic prospects of areas change. People will follow those trends, and if the change is big enough or rapid enough, we will get in a situation like this again. It will be very hard and sometimes impossible to stop that.

So in other words, drastic changes in the ethnic composition of certain European countries is set to continue if non-Western immigrants keep getting accepted at current rates.


Really? I'd like to see numbers on that. How many muslims are there in Europe and how many have been involved in terrorist activities.

I'd rather turn the challenge around: how many perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe did not have European citizenship? Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Madrid train bombings as a possible example.

As for second generation immigrants becoming terrorists: as an example, 3 out of 4 of the suicide bombers of the 2005 London attacks were born in England:


Mohammad Sidique Khan - born in Leeds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4762209.stm)
Hasib Hussain - born in Leeds (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12621387)
Shehzad Tanweer - born in Bradford (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4762313.stm)


I am not aware of any third generation terrorists yet, but I suspect it is only a matter of time (if I haven't simply missed any such individuals).


Even if the store is not locked yet closed, you still aren't allowed to buy an ananas (i.e. you'd still be "punished"), your argument makes no sense.

No, I am not punished because there is not intent to harm me or anyone else. There is no punishment involved.


Then why not start with the most urgent ones?

This is urgent; it's going on right now.


weed out the undesirables?

In terms of keeping out the ones most likely to offend, it's not realistic. In terms of cultural clashes and segregation, it's not relevant.

[Fragony]

THE BRITISH AND UKRAINIANS CALL IT A SAFE COUNTRY AND SAY I MUST STAY!!!

Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

Rare video of Merkel in her younger days http://bestofvine.org/v/83080/disney-princesses-have-zero-patience

[Husar]

No, I am not punished because there is not intent to harm me or anyone else. There is no punishment involveed.

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.


This is urgent; it's going on right now.

So is everything else.


In terms of keeping out the ones most likely to offend, it's not realistic. In terms of cultural clashes and segregation, it's not relevant.

If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

[Husar]

Nobody is screaming. So normal.


Of nu use to be reasobable, exhibit number a ^

Nobody is shouting. Redicule, the last bastion of someone without real arguments.

poke poke lmao....wtf it doesn't work

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

[Pannonian]

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.

So is everything else.

If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

Keeping them out of the country is certainly realistic. All we have to do is maintain the status quo. It's you who are arguing to change that status quo.

[Fragony]

First of all, why two replies to the same post?

I assume you desperately want an answer, so here it is:

I replied in the same way the question was asked, if that means I was shouting/screaming, than the other guy was shouting/screaming, too. So yes, somebody else was shouting, you're wrong.

Ah foggetabouit, see it all the time. You have no arguments so you try to make those who disagree look hysterical. But those who do aren't shouting but being reasonable, a courtisy that's never rewarded with any courtisy, only hyperbole. It doesn't make me angry but it does dissapoint because no cliché is left behind.

[Viking]

Yes, I'm glad you saw the other mistake yourself.

?


So is everything else.

This takes us back to:


You can take the initiative to solve one security issue without simultaneously committing yourself to solve any security issue you can possibly think of ASAP.

The thing about this solution is that can be relatively simple to implement successfully (relative to how large the drop in unwanted behaviour would be, rather than the ability to keep every disallowed person out); which speaks for its prioritisation.


If fighting criminals is not realistic, should we further cut police budgets? But throwing all muslims/middle easterners out of the country IS realistic instead? Please explain how segregation, crime and cultural clashes are not related.

None of this was what we were talking about.

[Husar]

Keeping them out of the country is certainly realistic. All we have to do is maintain the status quo. It's you who are arguing to change that status quo.

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?


Ah foggetabouit, see it all the time. You have no arguments so you try to make those who disagree look hysterical. But those who do aren't shouting but being reasonable, a courtisy that's never rewarded with any courtisy, only hyperbole. It doesn't make me angry but it does dissapoint because no cliché is left behind.

You only reply with cryptic somethings, never an argument and even less often a link. Yet you keep accusing others of having no argument even though you are shown plenty. What are we arguing about anyway? In Beskar's thread it seemed like we agree and here you say I have no argument.


The thing about this solution is that can be relatively simple to implement successfully (relative to how large the drop in unwanted behaviour would be, rather than the ability to keep every disallowed person out); which speaks for its prioritisation.

How large would the drop in unwanted behavior be and how large would it be for other measures? And where do morals come into the equation? What would be the impact on Greece, Italy and surrounding countries? What the impact on those people stranded somewhere in the middle of winter? Would it be okay to let a few thousand people freeze to death because it's simple? What exactly are we talking about? Is this a what-if about us having kept the borders closed or are we talking about sending everybody who came back to somewhere else? And where to? What if the other country does not want them?


None of this was what we were talking about.

So it was the what-if after all? Okay, then, what should we have done and how nice would it be now then?

[Pannonian]

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?


Nice to see Germans once again wanting to impose their policies on others.

[Sarmatian]

Except it may continue to grow well beyond 2100 (http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkfram/aar/2014-06-17).

Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.


France's problems are France's own. The ironic thing is that some of the worst riots in France were by non-Westeren immigrants.

If that is able to start mass protests, imagine what could happen after a more serious social upheaval.


This is beside the point. There is an upper limit on resources that no amount of trade can circumvent. The greater the global population, the closer you are to this limit.

If you free up some space in a country, it is likely to indirectly encourage more reproduction, since conditions are less harsh now than they would have been if none had emigrated.

If people either did not or could not emigrate, the local population would reach the ceiling that it can not pass sooner. This would give a lower global population as well, since the populations of the other countries had already reached their maximum values, even without resource shortages. With the emigration from the surplus countries to the other countries, the populations in all countries can grow in parallel towards the global ceiling.


This is so full of fail I don't know where to begin.

We're so far off a hypothetical global limit that it is absurd to even contemplate it.

In the next part you mix up economic conditions of an area and food production. I'm not going to bother responding.


We cannot expect that non-Western immigrants will have an ideal ratio of nurses among them (or even that their nurse education is immediately applicable here); which can in turn lead to a further increase in unemployment.

I never said it would be ideal. The point is that there are jobs refugees could do, some right away, some with a little training, some with more training. They wouldn't be a perpetual drain.


So in other words, drastic changes in the ethnic composition of certain European countries is set to continue if non-Western immigrants keep getting accepted at current rates.

The first part is correct. Ethnic composition has never been a static category. Just look at the ethnic composition of Europe 200 years ago, 500 years ago, a 1000 years and 2000 years ago.

It has nothing to do with refugees, though. It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.


I'd rather turn the challenge around: how many perpetrators of Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe did not have European citizenship? Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Madrid train bombings as a possible example.

As for second generation immigrants becoming terrorists: as an example, 3 out of 4 of the suicide bombers of the 2005 London attacks were born in England:


Mohammad Sidique Khan - born in Leeds (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4762209.stm)
Hasib Hussain - born in Leeds (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12621387)
Shehzad Tanweer - born in Bradford (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4762313.stm)


I am not aware of any third generation terrorists yet, but I suspect it is only a matter of time (if I haven't simply missed any such individuals).


That is irrelevant and nonsensical. Let's say all of them, a 100%. Now you've got a result, what you're gonna do with it? Deduce that a 100% of Muslims in Europe are terrorist?

Congratulations, you're now a proud owner of a piece of information that is completely accurate and useless at the same time.

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

[Greyblades]

Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

You ever heard of the saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

[Pannonian]

Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.


Why not import eastern Europeans instead? Why import middle easterners? It's not as though there is a shortage of eastern Europeans wanting to come here. And as you've noted, eastern Europeans hardly need to adapt, whereas middle easterners (and Maghrebians) have made a poor fist of adapting here to our satisfaction.

[Sarmatian]

Why not import eastern Europeans instead? Why import middle easterners? It's not as though there is a shortage of eastern Europeans wanting to come here. And as you've noted, eastern Europeans hardly need to adapt, whereas middle easterners (and Maghrebians) have made a poor fist of adapting here to our satisfaction.

For UK, it would be better, almost in every way. They would integrate faster, learn the language faster and so on. But it wouldn't solve the problem of Europe or even EU as a whole.

It makes UK (and Germany, France, Austria...) better but it makes the situation worse in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia... What happens in one part of Europe affects the other. Nothing illustrates it better than WW1, the latest example would be the Greek crisis.
Another issue is the fact that it is more likely that Eastern European countries would raise the standard of living before Europe as whole reaches equilibrium.
And, thirdly, globalisation - the difference between a Bulgarian and an Englishman would have been huge a 1000 years ago, smaller 500 years ago and basically nonexistent now, minus the language and religion. Take a British and a Bulgarian students now, they're very likely to be into similar music, similar sports, do similar things for fun, have similar problems, probably even have similar apps on their smartphone. My guess is that the differences would be smaller and smaller.

But, yes, for a country like UK, it would be a better short term solution. I don't think it is a valid long term solution. The better strategy would be the host country investing time and effort to make sure newcomers integrate, as the effort would certainly also help other groups in that country.

[Papewaio]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/over-10000-asylum-seeker-children-missing-europol-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

[Fragony]

hussie, Beskar's thread is about mindless violence against immigrants, which I deeply disaprove. This one about the consequences of just letting everybody in. There is no inconsistancy

[Pannonian]

So we have bombed Syria because ISIS is too deadly.
The locals have run away from ISIS and a dictator to become asylum seekers.
ISIS attacks Paris killing 100.
So we are going to collectively punish the asylum seekers for the ISIS attacks.

Doesn't that seem slightly warped to punish the victim for the attackers success even against first world counter terrorist agencies.

Are we going to collectively punish the whole of Europe for losing 10,000 plus asylum seeker children?:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-01/over-10000-asylum-seeker-children-missing-europol-says/7128558

"Over 10,000 unaccompanied asylum seeker children have disappeared in Europe, the EU police agency Europol says, fearing many have been whisked away into sex trafficking rings or the slave trade."

Hey, I'm consistent. I was against bombing Syria or taking part in any action there. Now I'm against letting in Syrians. I gave up on that region years ago, as everything we do and don't do is blamed on us. Let them do whatever they want, and let them bear the consequences for doing whatever they want. And as I predicted years ago, everything we've done or not done is blamed on us. At least let us continue to not do, and save money in the process. We'll get blamed either way anyway.


For UK, it would be better, almost in every way. They would integrate faster, learn the language faster and so on. But it wouldn't solve the problem of Europe or even EU as a whole.

It makes UK (and Germany, France, Austria...) better but it makes the situation worse in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Serbia... What happens in one part of Europe affects the other. Nothing illustrates it better than WW1, the latest example would be the Greek crisis.
Another issue is the fact that it is more likely that Eastern European countries would raise the standard of living before Europe as whole reaches equilibrium.
And, thirdly, globalisation - the difference between a Bulgarian and an Englishman would have been huge a 1000 years ago, smaller 500 years ago and basically nonexistent now, minus the language and religion. Take a British and a Bulgarian students now, they're very likely to be into similar music, similar sports, do similar things for fun, have similar problems, probably even have similar apps on their smartphone. My guess is that the differences would be smaller and smaller.

But, yes, for a country like UK, it would be a better short term solution. I don't think it is a valid long term solution. The better strategy would be the host country investing time and effort to make sure newcomers integrate, as the effort would certainly also help other groups in that country.

Sounds good to me. If the individual countries want to do their bit, let them do so. But they have no right to impose their policies on other countries.

[Montmorency]

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.


If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

Does it really need to be explained at this point why this kind of assertion is so weak and incomplete? Humans have much better resource multipliers than other creatures, so the only real limit to the human population on the Earth is an administrative one.

The real problem is that unlimited growth, under disparate sovereignties, is unsustainable, because continuous improvements in living conditions and ICT factors across all populations is unsustainable.

We should be concerned by your example of the carrying capacity of deer on the islands, then, in the sense that it highlights the fragility of the current international and civilizational order. We can't roll so well with the punches anymore (the bigger they are, the harder they fall of course), with the post-war era having been predicated on the stabilizing effect of economic interdependence. Human catastrophes like Syria and Haiti are par for the course, and if the interest is long-term sustainability then learning to calmly and effectively react to situations in which millions are dying or stand to die is necessary - but this cuts against modern humanist goals. Humanists see infinite expansion of humanity into the future, and so take any 'cullings' very personally. At the same time, they take the position that death and suffering ought to be assuaged everywhere, but death and suffering, on small or large scales, is essential to the condition of living ecology rather than a "tragic" setback to the anthropic imperial project.

In other words, because the order is so brittle and the "free market" actively works against development and contingency for recurring disruptions (that kill large proportions of the population), combinations of social unrest, economic weakness, and poor environmental conditions will inevitably lead to either mass migrations or the collapse of global markets in favor of armed conflict between coordinated strategic blocs.

[Gilrandir]

If you mean keeping the refugees out of Britain, to a large extent it seems realistic unless we give them a lot of boats to swarm you with.
How should the Greeks and Italians go about it?


Towing back all boats to where they came from.

[Snowhobbit]

Targeting children for beatings to send a political "message" isn't different enough from slitting throats on a Libyan beach to send a political "message" to make me think well of them. Of course, one is less at risk from a "hulking" 12-year-old, so I suppose that inspires bravery.

:shame:

While it is indeed a shame to have these men roaming the streets to "exact justice", and fortunately they were arrested before anything disastrous happened. It is however a major issue that we have "children" of north African origin roaming the streets of central Stockholm, a stone's throw away from Parliament and the PM's residence, selling drugs, robbing people and sexually assaulting women. They often claim to be very young in order to not be prosecuted etc. Once medical age checks are done by the courts it is often shown that these "children" are in fact grown men. Unfortunately Morocco and Algeria for some reason don't want these career criminals to go back home, and so refuse to take them if the "kids" arn't carrying proper ID.

It should also be mentioned that a gang of 10-20 immigrants decided to descend upon a central Metro station wearing robber masks and wielding batons, lashing out at the regular people using the metro to travel. Police showed up with 10 cars and made the arrests while wielding drawn semi-automatics, rather than the usual service pistol. Once police have established order, they simply disperse the kids, as "no crime has been comitted". So apparently it is not illegal to cover your face in public (it is), it is not illegal to intimidate (it is), it is not illegal to wield weapons (it is illegal to run around with batons) in public, if you are belonging to the right group.

There is something rotten in Sweden, and the Government authorities really need to start acting like they care, or I'm sure we will sadly have more vigilante mobs, before all hell breaks loose. At least we can deploy the army now if needed, to assist the civil forces.

[Snowhobbit]

You focus more on whether there was a child in there than on the event itself. Hundreds of adult males attacked and beaten up people, without provocation. It wasn't spontaneus, it wasn't random.

Last time it happened, you declared that a million people should be barred entry and sent home. What are we supposed to do now?
Which event are you referring to that had hundreds of adults going and beating up people? Because it was not hundreds in Stockholm (then the police would have had far more problems subduing them).

[Sarmatian]

Which event are you referring to that had hundreds of adults going and beating up people? Because it was not hundreds in Stockholm (then the police would have had far more problems subduing them).

That's what the article said.

[Snowhobbit]

That's what the article said.

It is true that there were roughly one or two hundred men present. One person punched an officer (and got arrested for that), a handful of people were kindly driven off to a different location to disperse them, and a small number of people were charged for carrying knives in public. No person of immigrant origin (or any other than the police officer) was reported as having been assaulted. They handed out fliers stating that the illegal street urchins/men would be "getting what is coming to them" etc, basically inciting violence. Now, if police had not interfered it is likely something horrible would have happened. But it didn't.

[Myth]

Well, that's equality for you. The police, which was impotent and could not protect women from assault and rape, can't protect immigrant kids from unjustified violence.

There was a story recently where an algerian 14 year old stabbed a scandinavian girl. So yeah, there's shite on both ends of the diaper.

[Myth]

Towing back all boats to where they came from.

No, just build more Ships of the Line of coruse.

[Snowhobbit]

Well, that's equality for you. The police, which was impotent and could not protect women from assault and rape, can't protect immigrant kids from unjustified violence.

There was a story recently where an algerian 14 year old stabbed a scandinavian girl. So yeah, there's shite on both ends of the diaper.

What is the basis for this? Where are the police reports of immigrants being beaten up? The police were fully able to establish order and arrest the worst perpetrators (unlike in the Metro, where 3 strikes of illegality lead to no charges being pressed).

Stabbings is not even half of what these "immigrant kids" have been engaged in. The targets of this attempted mob justice have a lot more on their conscience than mere stabbings...

[Myth]

What is the basis for this? Where are the police reports of immigrants being beaten up? The police were fully able to establish order and arrest the worst perpetrators (unlike in the Metro, where 3 strikes of illegality lead to no charges being pressed).

Stabbings is not even half of what these "immigrant kids" have been engaged in. The targets of this attempted mob justice have a lot more on their conscience than mere stabbings...

Shh, don't let the others hear you. You'll be called a racist islamophobe bigot nazi alien zombie.

[Snowhobbit]

Shh, don't let the others hear you. You'll be called a racist islamophobe bigot nazi alien zombie.

I dunno, our PM managed to call SD right-wing rather than brown fascists-nazies. Not that I am card-carrying or inclined to vote SD for now, there are more serious parties with better policies on immigration/integration, not to mention every other area where SD is rather weak.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll just collate some posts first.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hundreds-of-masked-men-beat-refugee-children-in-stockholm-a6843451.html

It seems that those who are outraged by immigrants have decided that they themselves should be dealing with the problem... by putting on masks and beating up refugee children.

Whilst it seems acceptable to point fingers at incidents which go against the grain of our society by those deemed 'outsiders', things are always shushed when we have a look at the natives acting like the barbaric animals they can be.

I don't think acts of violence are isolated into groups labelled as being on the "outside".


Looks like PVC has earned an "I told you so":


Are you certain they were children-children and not primitives in their 30s claiming to be 12? If it's the latter type of "children" (I understand they are quite common in Sweden), I'm really glad they got into physical contact with someone of their own size and strength.

There is indeed a large problem in Sweden where young men claim to be minors, this entitles them to extra benefits and more importantly to bring their whole family to Sweden.

Some context:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35444173

Swden now officially has a worse gender imbalance than China.

Some more general woes of Sweden and immigration.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35425735

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35451080

This was predictable - after the mass-sexual assault in Germany and elsewhere the stabbing of a single young woman who was there to help the migrants was the spark of a pile of tinder, oily, greasy tinder.

The Swedes are losing faith in their government because the government is less interested in them than in an ideological mission to help the "unfortunate", a mission that is now causing suffering for the native Swedes that actually vote and pay taxes.

If the Swedish authorities don't deal with the migrant problem then this is going to get worse. That's not to say the 100 masked men aren't horrible people but for every masked man there are probably ten other Swedes who let him get away with it by, for example, not tipping off the Police.

Beskar is wrong to compare these thugs to the immigrants though, the immigrants do what they do out of a sense of entitlement - the violence against aid workers because they aren't getting what they want fast enough, the sex attacks because they want to grope pretty Germanic women.

These thugs did what they did out of fear - it's a completely different impulse.

[Myth]

Correction, fear would not be it. If "fight or flight" is taken into account, this would be righteous rage and fury.

[Snowhobbit]

This was predictable - after the mass-sexual assault in Germany and elsewhere the stabbing of a single young woman who was there to help the migrants was the spark of a pile of tinder, oily, greasy tinder.

The Swedes are losing faith in their government because the government is less interested in them than in an ideological mission to help the "unfortunate", a mission that is now causing suffering for the native Swedes that actually vote and pay taxes.

If the Swedish authorities don't deal with the migrant problem then this is going to get worse. That's not to say the 100 masked men aren't horrible people but for every masked man there are probably ten other Swedes who let him get away with it by, for example, not tipping off the Police.

Beskar is wrong to compare these thugs to the immigrants though, the immigrants do what they do out of a sense of entitlement - the violence against aid workers because they aren't getting what they want fast enough, the sex attacks because they want to grope pretty Germanic women.

These thugs did what they did out of fear - it's a completely different impulse.
First off, the caretaker worker was stabbed because she interfered in the attempted murder of another of the residents of the asylum home.

It is true that our authorities are failing to deal with the issues, primarily because they are hamstrung by our ruling politicians. I can assure you that there would not even be a thousand residents of Stockholm who would let these man run amok in the streets without alerting the police. They are thugs however and are not acting out of fear. These men have never been under threat from the street urchins. They are acting because they believe (wrongly) that it is the right thing to do, and given their history as football hooligans (united from all 3 clubs in Stockholm) they are no strangers to using violence not only as a means to solve a conflict, but also as a means to provide themselves with entertainment. Have no illusions about the "greater good" that they may claim to be trying to fight for. While it is not fear, it is not their sense of justice that called them to the street with weapons.

[Snowhobbit]

Correction, fear would not be it. If "fight or flight" is taken into account, this would be righteous rage and fury.

There is nothing righteous about what happened on that weekend, other than the arrest of the would be mob.

[Husar]

hussie, Beskar's thread is about mindless violence against immigrants, which I deeply disaprove. This one about the consequences of just letting everybody in. There is no inconsistancy

Inconsistencies in your heart my friend. You want to help people in need because you have a good heart and at the same time you would rather keep them all in poverty and squalor outside the walls of Babylon.


Towing back all boats to where they came from.

Where did they come from?


No, just build more Ships of the Line of coruse.

To ship them to Europe safely?

[Snowhobbit]

Where did they come from?


In the case of Greece, they came from Turkey. In the case of Italy they mostly come from Libya.

[Husar]

In the case of Greece, they came from Turkey. In the case of Italy they mostly come from Libya.

Why are they coming from our allies? Will Libya accept all of them based on "we assume they mostly came from here"? What if Libya gives them new boats right away? Who is responsible in Libya anyway? What about the ones who already landed?

[Pannonian]

Why are they coming from our allies? Will Libya accept all of them based on "we assume they mostly came from here"? What if Libya gives them new boats right away? Who is responsible in Libya anyway? What about the ones who already landed?

And this is why toppling Gaddafi was such a stupid decision.

[Snowhobbit]

Why are they coming from our allies? Will Libya accept all of them based on "we assume they mostly came from here"? What if Libya gives them new boats right away? Who is responsible in Libya anyway? What about the ones who already landed?

Yes, what motive does Turkey have to offload their refugees on the EU? Have they been getting any juicy rewards in recent negotiations perhaps? Does Turkey maybe act in their own self-interest?
Libya, or at least the areas from where the refugees depart, are largely lawless and the smugglers pay protection money to ISIS. The ones who have already landed should have their application processed and if they are granted asylum should be spread around EU as economy and ability to integrate dictates.

And henceforth going with the current suggestion by the EU chair-country would be beneficial to all parties.

[Gilrandir]

pretty Germanic women.



Oxymoron?

[Gilrandir]

Where did they come from?


Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

[Pannonian]

Oxymoron?

Just look at this pulchritude.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/01/72/31/0172313f1a1881e143c8c1884a15be1b.jpg

Blonde Germanic beauty in all its glory. The girl's not bad either.

[Sarmatian]

the stabbing of a single young woman who was there to help the migrants

Funny thing, it the case of the Swedish girl who was murdered, is that she is a second generation immigrant from Lebanon. There just a dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.

[Snowhobbit]

Funny thing, it the case of the Swedish girl who was murdered, is that she is a second generation immigrant from Lebanon. There just a dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.
We can find a plethora of victims from all manner of groups you want to divide society into with regards to crime from certain groups. Immigrants are overrepresented both as perpetrators and victims when it comes to severe crime in Sweden. Very few blonde girls are victims of "honour" killings for instance. Victims of rape will have a different setup of course.
The fact that we have calls to separate our asylum shelters between Muslims and Christians, and I'm sure soon Sunni and Shia might have escaped notice on the forums. That we greet returning ISIS fighters with open arms and fast-tracks into jobs and housing is sure to help too...

[Fragony]

Funny thing, it the case of the Swedish girl who was murdered, is that she is a second generation immigrant from Lebanon. There just a dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.

Or avoid what they don't they don't. I didn't know that but she was an immigrant herself but why take that into consideration if it happened on Swedish soil. I saw his picture, he is not 15. He is not Somalian either. Not going to bet any of my nuts on it but I'm pretty sure. Showed pic to Somalian mate and he is sure as well.

[Beskar]

Funny thing, it the case of the Swedish girl who was murdered, is that she is a second generation immigrant from Lebanon. There just a dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.

Are you suggesting that she is not classed as an immigrant because it suits certain 'media' people read, to paint the picture of innocent blonde haired white Swedes being preyed in the streets, and that otherwise, she is just another immigrant as spun by those same 'media' outlets?

[Snowhobbit]

Or avoid what they don't they don't. I didn't know that but she was an immigrant herself but why take that into consideration if it happened on Swedish soil. I saw his picture, he is not 15. He is not Somalian either. Not going to bet any of my nuts on it but I'm pretty sure. Showed pic to Somalian mate and he is sure as well.

He spoke Somali very well according to the translator. But yes he is definitely not 15, the system just incentivizes him to lie about his age.

Are you suggesting that she is not classed as an immigrant because it suits certain 'media' people read, to paint the picture of innocent blonde haired white Swedes being preyed in the streets, and that otherwise, she is just another immigrant as spun by those same 'media' outlets?
Are you suggesting it is good that the police was refusing to deal with sexual assaults due to the perpetrators belonging to a group which would lead to gains by a certain political party?

She was born and raised in Sweden and spoke Swedish, fully integrated into society, even graduating from a uni.
What does it take for you to view someone with roots in immigration to be viewed as Swedish?

[Viking]

How large would the drop in unwanted behavior be and how large would it be for other measures? And where do morals come into the equation? What would be the impact on Greece, Italy and surrounding countries? What the impact on those people stranded somewhere in the middle of winter? Would it be okay to let a few thousand people freeze to death because it's simple? What exactly are we talking about? Is this a what-if about us having kept the borders closed or are we talking about sending everybody who came back to somewhere else? And where to? What if the other country does not want them?



So it was the what-if after all? Okay, then, what should we have done and how nice would it be now then?


Part of the reason so many travel to Europe is that they know they might get accepted here. They could have travelled to China or Kazakhstan, but they won't - because they don't expect to be accepted there. Once people are not let into Europe, fewer will come, because it is likely to be a waste of time, anyway.

They don't necessarily have to be sent back (which would rely on the goodwill or agreement with destination countries), we could just place them in closed interment camps that are only marginally better than the ones in e.g. Lebanon. This, too, would reduce the desire to travel to Europe.

This could be a one-time investment with significant pay-off; unlike a lot of other things you might do in order to decrease the amount of anti-social behaviour.


Yes, it will continue to grow. That is the point. It will continue to grow because the population is living longer and subsequently gets older. Short of killing them at the age of 70, the only other option is to balance it by importing more youth.

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.


If that is able to start mass protests, imagine what could happen after a more serious social upheaval.

Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.


We're so far off a hypothetical global limit that it is absurd to even contemplate it.

Disagree.


In the next part you mix up economic conditions of an area and food production. I'm not going to bother responding.

:inquisitive:


I never said it would be ideal. The point is that there are jobs refugees could do, some right away, some with a little training, some with more training. They wouldn't be a perpetual drain.

But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).


It has nothing to do with refugees, though.

Given enough refugees, it will.


It will happen, even if you never accept a single Muslim ever again.

Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.


That is irrelevant and nonsensical. Let's say all of them, a 100%. Now you've got a result, what you're gonna do with it? Deduce that a 100% of Muslims in Europe are terrorist?

Congratulations, you're now a proud owner of a piece of information that is completely accurate and useless at the same time.

This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.


Man, Greyblades is starting to make more sense than you.

Stay classy.

[Beskar]

...we could just place them in closed interment camps...

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

[Beskar]

Are you suggesting it is good that the police was refusing to deal with sexual assaults due to the perpetrators belonging to a group which would lead to gains by a certain political party? Considering I didn't at any point make any comments referring to the topic, it would be a very long stretch to suggest that I was suggesting anything of the sort.


She was born and raised in Sweden and spoke Swedish, fully integrated into society, even graduating from a uni.
What does it take for you to view someone with roots in immigration to be viewed as Swedish?
It is not me who has the issue.

[Montmorency]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

And yet one of the oft-cited dilemmas regarding the admission of refugees is that 'we don't know where they are coming from'. :creep:

Once again, the most reasonable solution seems to be the colonization of Neo-Prussia.


Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.


Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

If we are prepared to embark on a full program of integration, then let us do so - swiftly, much more so than now. If we are holding most asylum seekers temporarily, then closed internment camps are the most effective and humane way of both accounting for the population and providing for/ensuring access to vital goods and services. The quality of conditions under internment obviously depends on funding levels and protocol and oversight in place; we must recognize the difference between conditionally (i.e. 'don't run off') housing asylum seekers in facilities well-provided with heating, food, water, medicine, books, and communications equipment and any of the abusive examples readily citable from modern history.

[Fragony]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

[Pannonian]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

[Montmorency]

Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

[Pannonian]

Or just form an Arabische Legion to counter Putin.

And annex Neo-Prussia with it.

If they want to sign up for longer, feel free. If they distinguish themselves like the Gurkhas do with the British Army, I'd welcome them. I'd put other indeterminate Muslims from the Maghrebi countries in the same boat. They can earn EU citizenship by providing something that we're short of, and doing something that concretely demonstrates their commitment to the EU. If they don't want to do that, they can be interned as threats to national security until such a time as we can find a place for them elsewhere. Women and children (and they'd have to be bloody obviously children to qualify as such) can be dealt with as though they are natives.

[Montmorency]

That's one spin to put on it, but the more interesting implication (as I see it) of my comment is that if Germany were to reach a point where there was political will to deport hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, then a political will for irredentist Anschluss (entailing the deportation of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians) would not be inconceivable.

[Husar]

Doesn't matter. Wherever it is - just ship'em back.

How do you determine where to ship them to? And again, what if that country claims they cannot be returned because they are not citizens of that country? What if they come from the caliphate? Ship them to the caliphate?


Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

So did many places in America, people tend to get over it (or are allowed to live in reservations).



This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.

Then why are outside people supposedly the problem?


Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?

[Pannonian]

A lot of them are apparently fleeing from potential army service or from getting recruited by terrorist organizations, what should they do? Stay there and join the terrorists because they have to fight anyway?

On the one hand we claim they're all way too violent for our culture and then we suggest to turn the peaceful ones into killers?


Look after the women and children as though they are natives. Train the men as an army, under European officers, to fight ISIS. If we can't trust them with heavy weapons, then train them as light infantry with European forces providing heavy lifting. Those who aren't suitable for fighting as front line infantry can work in the logistical tail instead. Those who won't work towards this should be interned until such a time as they can be deported back to Syria. Those who distinguish themselves can be offered EU citizenship, distributed between the EU countries.

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

[Viking]

Do people not realise that 'immigrants' are actually people?

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.


Another disconnected generalization without regard for causality. Generally speaking, the old have been far too infirm and far too few in number to even constitute a distinct demographic in the first place.

If you want anecdotes, look to the readiness of "senior citizens" to march and gather in protest in the United States and Japan on conservative planks and for self-advocacy.

I'd also add that the young may be more impulsive (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-still-under-construction/index.shtml), and that they presumably have more hormones raging in their blood.

[Husar]

Modern armies have long tails, along the ratio of 9 in the rear to 1 at the front (from what I can remember of WWII numbers). If they're unwilling to be killers in the service of the EU, there is that route, although I'd disqualify them from any chance of qualifying for EU citizenship. That is still working towards their own liberation, within an EU project. If they're unwilling to do even that, then why should we provide them with any succour? As seen in the current situation, if EU countries lack teeth, there is no incentive to do what they request. People who have no permission to be here, and where we don't have a stable state to deal with, will do whatever they want.

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

[Pannonian]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?


This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

Oh well, the Syrians are in Germany and elsewhere on the mainland, not in Britain. Britain is better able than most to control its borders unilaterally, so if you don't want to use them thus, you can deal with them in whatever way you want. As long as we're not taking them. I won't shed a tear if they decide to stay in Germany indefinitely, because the likes of yourself are uncomfortable with making them go back.

[Husar]

And here is the invocation of liberal values by bleeding heart liberals that I was talking about. Nothing about how to solve the problem of hundreds of thousands of people who have already proven to be problematic socially and more immediately a shield for terrorists, but instead, all the effort is aimed at putting the blame on the host countries. Disguised, of course, as a complete misconstruing of what anyone says that doesn't fit the narrative of the west is bad.

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense. :dizzy2:

[Beskar]

Criminals are people, too; yet we lock them up in prisons for years. It's not a 'realisation' that is particularly relevant in this context.

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

[Pannonian]

What? Where are these hundreds of thousands of people and how have they proven to be problematic? Is it already problematic to be a muslim or wear a headscarf? And you're also miscontruing what I said, I wasn't asking you to blame us, I was saying we may have to be blamed IF we implement what you suggest because I see some problems with your suggestion. Instead of having a serious discussion about possible problems you cry that I want you to hate yourself, which is complete nonsense. :dizzy2:

Mea culpa then. Let the status quo continue indefinitely, to our satisfaction.

[Viking]

Justice system works on a principle of reforming offenders and separating those who are proven dangerous to society from society.

It is not about locking people up just because they are from a different country.

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

[Beskar]

No one would be locked up for being from a different country. The rationale for the internment camps has already been provided.

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

[Pannonian]

Been provided a few times in history, I don't agree with your solution to the refugee problem.

There aren't any refugees, and there certainly isn't a refugee problem. Husar says so. We can just carry on as normal.

[Papewaio]

Of course, but you would expect refugees to give a sigh of relief the second they are in a country where they are safe, and can't wait to return to their homes once it's safe to do so. I would put these brackets on refugees, like this; 'refugees'

Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

[Pannonian]

Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

Fortunately, there aren't many of them, so whatever country they end up in can deal with them with ease.

[Husar]

Mea culpa then. Let the status quo continue indefinitely, to our satisfaction.

No, we obviously need to tighten some laws and get rid of people who hate us, I'm absolutely with you on that one, I just think they need to be judged on a more individual basis (maybe with the exception of say, being a proven member of a mafia group). I'm in favor of helping those who can behave and sentencing those who can't to either prison or extradition. The current problem are inadequate laws and a lack of enforcement and police capacity, at least in Germany. It is absolutely possible that politicians are/were too lax as Fragony says it regarding the enforcement of laws or actually doing something about crimes committed by immigrants. The same id true about nazi crimes here as the Sauerland group showed. I'm not saying we are responsible for what these people do, but we are responsible for protecting ourselves from these people. I am against solutions that target entire populations for the mistakes of a minority among them.

[Pannonian]

No, we obviously need to tighten some laws and get rid of people who hate us, I'm absolutely with you on that one, I just think they need to be judged on a more individual basis (maybe with the exception of say, being a proven member of a mafia group). I'm in favor of helping those who can behave and sentencing those who can't to either prison or extradition. The current problem are inadequate laws and a lack of enforcement and police capacity, at least in Germany. It is absolutely possible that politicians are/were too lax as Fragony says it regarding the enforcement of laws or actually doing something about crimes committed by immigrants. The same id true about nazi crimes here as the Sauerland group showed. I'm not saying we are responsible for what these people do, but we are responsible for protecting ourselves from these people. I am against solutions that target entire populations for the mistakes of a minority among them.

Whatever works for you. I want the British government to stop anyone from coming in whom we're not actively letting in. Just as I respect the right of the German government to make their own domestic and border policy, so I expect the British government to have its right to make its own domestic and border policy.

[Sarmatian]

Are you suggesting...

I wasn't suggesting anything. I just said:


There are dozens of morals in that story, and everyone can pick the one they like.

It's almost unique in that quality, it's a Rorschach's test, basically. Everyone will see what they want to see.

[Husar]

Whatever works for you. I want the British government to stop anyone from coming in whom we're not actively letting in. Just as I respect the right of the German government to make their own domestic and border policy, so I expect the British government to have its right to make its own domestic and border policy.

They may have the right, but I don't have to agree with what they do just because they have the right to do it. It's not like I'm writing letters to British MPs imploring them to import more Syrians. I do however believe that these people were a much more minor problem if spread across all EU countries because there'd be very few of them in any given place. A long-term solution to limit the influx is needed as well, not entirely sure what that would be but not screwing up countries like Iraq and Libya may help. I suppose you agree with the latter.

[Pannonian]

They may have the right, but I don't have to agree with what they do just because they have the right to do it. It's not like I'm writing letters to British MPs imploring them to import more Syrians. I do however believe that these people were a much more minor problem if spread across all EU countries because there'd be very few of them in any given place. A long-term solution to limit the influx is needed as well, not entirely sure what that would be but not screwing up countries like Iraq and Libya may help. I suppose you agree with the latter.

I was against the Iraq war on the argument given for the invasion, but I wasn't yet against foreign intervention for the right causes. After seeing how we've got flak after that both for things we've done and not done, based simply on the premise that we're wrong and the question is merely how, I gave up on all foreign intervention unless it materially benefits us. Whatever we do or not do, we're still going to be blamed for whatever happens, as the conclusion that we're in the wrong has already been arrived at. Since we're going to be in the wrong whatever happens, I'd like us to navigate the least costly and most lucrative path possible. Moral arguments matter zilch to me, since we're already morally wrong (how depends on what we're being found morally wrong for).

[Sarmatian]

It would continue to grow because of continued immigration. The largest post-WWII cohorts are expected die off well before the year 2100.

No.

Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ourworldindata_world-maps-of-the-median-age-of-the-population-%E2%80%93-max-roser.png


Again, that's France. Upheaval in France is a result of how that country is governed, and does not have to translate directly to other countries.

It pretty much does. It is safe to assume to that other countries in app. the same economic, social and cultural situation will experience similar issues.

Even if they prove more resilient, the domino effect is a *****.


Generally speaking, most social upheaval tends to come from the younger generations, not the older ones. With a decreasing younger fraction of the population, the country could just as well become more stable.

Yeah, no.


Disagree.

Based on?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

This is cereal yield data by world bank. I don't know how familiar you are with soil quality of some of the countries, but let me tell you that the soil in Ukraine is probably even better than in Netherlands but the the yield in Netherlands is over twice that of Ukraine.

Very, very few countries in the world are getting maximal possible yields. Very few countries are using a 100% of their potential. Or literally creating new areas for food production by draining swamps, for instance. Just by applying the latest standards in the entire world, you would be able to increase the yield several times over.

That is not even taking into account the improvements new technologies have yet to bring. In the 18th century, calculations were made that the world would be hungry in the 19th century. There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.


:inquisitive:

You're not able to differentiate between a general economic situation in a given area and the ability of an area to produce food. New York doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, Las Vegas isn't producing enough food to feed itself. You are also looking at examples in isolation, when the system is global.

You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food, which is wrong, Then, you applied a faulty reasoning and reached a conclusion.

Thus, you're approaching "not even wrong" status fast, but at the moment you're at "no use explaining it further" category.


But a lot of them may end up unemployed or in low-paying jobs, potentially creating a new underclass of people along ethnic lines (which does not bode well for stability, cf. above).

By applying enough effort and resources, it can be assured that the bad effect are limited. They're used to low paying jobs, low paying jobs by western standards are miles ahead of what they used to get. They desire stability and safety.


Not necessarily. Many places in Europe has had a near-static ethnic composition for more than a thousand years.

That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.


This relates directly to your claim that it is safer for Europe (in terms of terrorism) to accept a large amount of migrants from Muslim countries rather than letting them stay there.

This claim appears to be directly odds with the ratio of Islamist terrorists with European citizenship to those without. The attacks are coming from within, not outside countries.


It is nonsensical, because it doesn't give us an estimate of how dangerous Muslims are, which is the whole point of this particular argument. If there is a 100 million Muslims in Europe and ten terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, the percentage is 100%. If there's 10 Muslims in Europe and 10 terrorist attacks, the percentage is again a 100%.

This is rational thinking 101.


Stay classy.

You assume I care how I'm being perceived.

[Beskar]

It's almost unique in that quality, it's a Rorschach's test, basically. Everyone will see what they want to see.
:laugh4: Indeed it is.

[Montmorency]

One thing to note, Pan, is that there are indeed interventions in which the local populations have an improved disposition toward the intervening country, or at least are grateful. France's contemporary missions to its former African colonies are an example, and these are low-intensity missions involving personnel on the order of only thousands. Maybe that's why they are comparatively well-received: inserting a sharp tool into a bad situation to improve it without becoming omnipresent,avoiding explicitly taking on massive burdens and responsibilities, and not visibly causing much general devastation (or at least being around to be associated with it). Intra-national examples (though of disaster response) are also good food for thought: compare the bungled federal response to Hurricane Katrina in the US compared to the rapid Japanese mobilization after the Fukushima quake. In both instances the government was rightly excoriated for prior negligence leading to exacerbated harm in the event, but it's widely agreed that Japan did a much better job with evacuation, shelter, and reconstruction under similar environmental conditions and with a comparable number of displaced persons.

To make it more obviously pertinent, recall the UN intervention in Haiti after the 2010 quake nearly obliterated the country. In fact, much of the damage occurred due to the UN's administrative and logistical failure, such that it sent soldiers to provide stability, but the soldiers were from South Asia or South America with few interpreters, hindered reconstruction, abused the local population under their UN immunity, and even caused a cholera epidemic due to bad sanitation and waste disposal practices. Does this mean the UN should not have bothered to send agents to Haiti? And keep in mind that humanitarian intervention is one of the few areas in which we actually give the UN much scope and funding to act.


the premise that we're wrong and the question is merely how

This is true of a subset of academics, but it's important to differentiate between academics on the one hand, and foreign governments or nations on the other. If intervention is on the table, then leaving aside all the other potential factors I think the former should count for much less than the latter. Don't let armchair criticism drive you into categorical rejection of a policy tool. If you actually screw up, that's on you. If you make that investment and achieve good results both for the people of the country and state-level (e.g. economic) interests, then academic whining is just background noise - at best it might clarify areas for improvement.

[Snowhobbit]

Considering I didn't at any point make any comments referring to the topic, it would be a very long stretch to suggest that I was suggesting anything of the sort.


It is not me who has the issue.
Indeed, and neither did Sarmatian claim anything, simply posting about the facts at hand. But it is nice to put words in other people's mouths isn't it?

Who has an issue? The usual cases of "alternative media" here describe her as 2nd generation immigrant. The usual cases (8 gang rapists on a ferry with Iraqi citizenship suddenly become Swedish) will accurately describe her as Swedish. Both descriptions are correct, unless you subscribe to the notion that one can only ever belong to at most one group.

[Snowhobbit]

So we're just saying that all of them will be criminals if we do not indoctrinate them and let everyone from an unstable nation fight against ISIS even if they're not from that area? Or will there be an army for each country that is unstable and has refugees arriving here?

I think that particular argument hinges on the fallacy that most of the "refugees" are from Syria. Quite a few from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia arrived in Germany last year :D

[Gilrandir]

How do you determine where to ship them to? And again, what if that country claims they cannot be returned because they are not citizens of that country? What if they come from the caliphate? Ship them to the caliphate?



They come by way of Turkey, so ship'em back there. And even better if landing is prevented. The coastal waters must be patrolled and whenever a boat with immigrants reaches Greece's waters the patrols should check permits for crossing the border, and if there are no - tow them back.

[Gilrandir]

Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3426947/Shocking-footage-claims-group-migrant-men-attacking-two-pensioners-stood-woman-harassing-Munich-subway.html

[Montmorency]

Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3426947/Shocking-footage-claims-group-migrant-men-attacking-two-pensioners-stood-woman-harassing-Munich-subway.html

Ethnic Germans and what appear to be North Africans in a physical altercation with a guy in a brown jacket (who appears to be Iranian or South Asian), another North African (Gray Jacket) arguing with and slapping the hand of one of the North Africans (Blue Jacket/Grey Hat) who was standing by, then that man (Grey Hat) and one more North African (Blue Jacket/No Hat), who had participated in subduing Brown Jacket, motioning and pointing at the cameraman or something behind him.

I'm not confident about the identifications of "North African", but the central focus of the video - the man in the brown jacket - is definitely of Iranian/South Asian extraction.

Seems like a lot going on in that video, actually.

[Snowhobbit]

Ethnic Germans and what appear to be North Africans in a physical altercation with a guy in a brown jacket (who appears to be Iranian or South Asian), another North African (Gray Jacket) arguing with and slapping the hand of one of the North Africans (Blue Jacket/Grey Hat) who was standing by, then that man (Grey Hat) and one more North African (Blue Jacket/No Hat), who had participated in subduing Brown Jacket, motioning and pointing at the cameraman or something behind him.

I'm not confident about the identifications of "North African", but the central focus of the video - the man in the brown jacket - is definitely of Iranian/South Asian extraction.

Seems like a lot going on in that video, actually.

The man with a blue jacket and no hat would appear to actually be part of the gang, possible a more cool-headed person who realises that whatever is going to happen will be better for everyone involved if the situation is de-escalated. Do note that he always attempts to prevent anyone else from "helping" as they take care of their hotblooded friend. I suppose on the lighter side of things we simply saw a case of sexual harassment and assault, as opposed to the Cologne events. And I'd agree that most of them certainly don't hail from Africa, not that it matters too much where they come from.

[Myth]

Happy Grounhog Day, Germany:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3426947/Shocking-footage-claims-group-migrant-men-attacking-two-pensioners-stood-woman-harassing-Munich-subway.html

The racist elderly germans should be prosecuted for racism and publicly shamed via media. They are also neo-nazis. Tomorrow's news: Nazism on the rise in Germany!

[Husar]

The racist elderly germans should be prosecuted for racism and publicly shamed via media. They are also neo-nazis. Tomorrow's news: Nazism on the rise in Germany!

That's yesterday's news already, you're late to the party.

[Fragony]

Ever since I was a kid watching the NEWS the Middle East has had conflict.

Lebanon was once called the Paris of the ME. How many decades always is that from regaining its title?

What's your best guess when it will be stable?

Mine is multi-generational. Anyone leaving as a refugee is going to be like the Irish going to the U.S., highly unlikely of going back (a few did).

Not really OT but I got a really good photobook of that war, can post them later if I ever figure how that piece of shit that is an iPhone works.

[Viking]

Even with continued immigration, population of Europe is getting old, really old, really fast.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ourworldindata_world-maps-of-the-median-age-of-the-population-%E2%80%93-max-roser.png

And yet, the population here can only grow past the year 2100 because of continued immigration.

As per the source I provided earlier (http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkfram/aar/2014-06-17) (graph), the population here could start declining as early as before the year 2060 if there will be little immigration.


It pretty much does. It is safe to assume to that other countries in app. the same economic, social and cultural situation will experience similar issues.

Even if they prove more resilient, the domino effect is a *****.



Yeah, no.

Time will be the judge.


There's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

And that's where we want to stay. Rapid, temporary climatic changes like the ones caused by massive volcanic eruptions could make the margins a lot tighter in a short amount of time.

As a separate argument: in times when few or no countries are willing to export, it's a big deal to be self-sufficient.


You've started from a premise that the planet is at the very end of its ability to produce enough food

No.


New York doesn't produce enough food to feed itself, Las Vegas isn't producing enough food to feed itself. You are also looking at examples in isolation, when the system is global.

This does not relate to what I've said. The world is neither perfectly global nor perfectly local.


By applying enough effort and resources, it can be assured that the bad effect are limited. They're used to low paying jobs, low paying jobs by western standards are miles ahead of what they used to get. They desire stability and safety.

Similar things can be said about measures to cope with an aging population without immigration.


That is because you assume that you and a Viking are one and the same.

No, if you have near 90%+ of an ethnicity in a country in the year 1100, and the direct descendants of this ethnicity still forms 90%+ of the population several centuries later, the ethnic composition is the same.

The evolution of the norms and culture of one ethnic group is not the same as a massive influx of people from another ethnic group.


It is nonsensical, because it doesn't give us an estimate of how dangerous Muslims are, which is the whole point of this particular argument. If there is a 100 million Muslims in Europe and ten terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, the percentage is 100%. If there's 10 Muslims in Europe and 10 terrorist attacks, the percentage is again a 100%.

The point is not "how dangerous Muslims are", but which Muslim populations give rise to the terrorists operating in Europe. Your argument was the following:


- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

[Montmorency]

whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

This will necessarily be true even in the best-case scenarios of integration; the "threat" posed by terrorism is basically negligible. The whole efficacy of terrorism comes from low-cost external actors generating internal anxiety and disruption. So those on the side of accepting/retaining large numbers of migrants and refugees are correct in the sense that one of the objectives is to induce a nativist reaction against Muslims leading to further Muslim alienation in Europe, and potential unity against Europe in the core Muslim world. At the same time, this very fact of the matter depends on the existence of significant Muslim communities for terrorists to use as leverage. The pro-retention group must admit that their technical accuracy has the flipside of vindicating important concerns of those in opposition.

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.

This post isn't even to advocate for any particular course of policy action, but to make it clear what the stakes are and what those favoring naturalization have to deal with for their position to have relevance or staying power. Again, to be clear this is all said with respect to the very specific claim that rejecting the refugees to this or that extent would further some of the same Islamic terrorist goals as anti-retentionists would like to counter by limiting the intake of Muslims.

It is a sort of Gordian knot for all involved, and the dangerous thing about difficult knots is that they incline towards being solved by the most straightforward means, similar to the idea that "the blade itself incites to violence".

[Pannonian]

This will necessarily be true even in the best-case scenarios of integration; the "threat" posed by terrorism is basically negligible. The whole efficacy of terrorism comes from low-cost external actors generating internal anxiety and disruption. So those on the side of accepting/retaining large numbers of migrants and refugees are correct in the sense that one of the objectives is to induce a nativist reaction against Muslims leading to further Muslim alienation in Europe, and potential unity against Europe in the core Muslim world. At the same time, this very fact of the matter depends on the existence of significant Muslim communities for terrorists to use as leverage. The pro-retention group must admit that their technical accuracy has the flipside of vindicating important concerns of those in opposition.

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.

This post isn't even to advocate for any particular course of policy action, but to make it clear what the stakes are and what those favoring naturalization have to deal with for their position to have relevance or staying power. Again, to be clear this is all said with respect to the very specific claim that rejecting the refugees to this or that extent would further some of the same Islamic terrorist goals as anti-retentionists would like to counter by limiting the intake of Muslims.

It is a sort of Gordian knot for all involved, and the dangerous thing about difficult knots is that they incline towards being solved by the most straightforward means, similar to the idea that "the blade itself incites to violence".

The 7/7 attacks were met with what's practically a turned cheek towards UK Muslims. What's the result been since? 700+ UK Muslims gone off to join ISIS. Tell me what kind of persecution we've perpetuated that's prompted that many (more than have joined the British Army) to join a foreign state that's openly declared war and other hostile activities on Britain.

The Muslim exodus to ISIS was the last straw. While I don't want any action on existing UK Muslims, other than those who openly support ISIS and their like, nor do I want any more here.

[Fragony]

Look at the silver lighning, those who go there are going to die there. Just make sure they can't come back.I don't think anybody wants IS to be annihilated, it would be pretty easy to do that. When it comes to concentrating something IS is pretty convenient.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

She was born and raised in Sweden and spoke Swedish, fully integrated into society, even graduating from a uni.
What does it take for you to view someone with roots in immigration to be viewed as Swedish?

A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

[Montmorency]

A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

The TW take on tribal identity over time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The TW take on tribal identity over time.

That might be the punchline.

[Shaka_Khan]

ISIS is the reason why they're fleeing to Europe. As long as ISIS is still there, there'll continue to be more refugees.

[Sarmatian]

And yet, the population here can only grow past the year 2100 because of continued immigration.

As per the source I provided earlier (http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/folkfram/aar/2014-06-17) (graph), the population here could start declining as early as before the year 2060 if there will be little immigration.

Read the link you provided. Even with immigration, the population of Norway will get old. Every fifth person will be over 70 in 2060 in Norway (19% compared to 11% now).
Number of people between 80 and 90 will double (3.4% to 7%)
Number of people over 90 will triple (0.8% t0 2.5%)


And that's where we want to stay. Rapid, temporary climatic changes like the ones caused by massive volcanic eruptions could make the margins a lot tighter in a short amount of time.

And those will or won't happen irrespective of refugees.


As a separate argument: in times when few or no countries are willing to export, it's a big deal to be self-sufficient.

Which is way most western countries subsidize agriculture, even though could import a lot of food supplies cheaper.


This does not relate to what I've said. The world is neither perfectly global nor perfectly local.

And what you said doesn't relate to the topic.


Similar things can be said about measures to cope with an aging population without immigration.

No, because with active measures countries could reduce poverty and raise education levels, for general population as well as immigrants, while there's no way to magically make citizens younger.


No, if you have near 90%+ of an ethnicity in a country in the year 1100, and the direct descendants of this ethnicity still forms 90%+ of the population several centuries later, the ethnic composition is the same.

The evolution of the norms and culture of one ethnic group is not the same as a massive influx of people from another ethnic group.

Even if we accept this as true, the only place in Europe where it is true is Scandinavia.


The point is not "how dangerous Muslims are", but which Muslim populations give rise to the terrorists operating in Europe. Your argument was the following:

whereas actual evidence points towards the existence of Muslim populations in Europe being a much greater threat to European security than terrorist entities operating in the Middle East.

Apparently, the principal goal of the terrorist organizations is to get those Muslims to the Middle East so they could be radicalized, trained and redirected. So, them being the Middle East is instrumental.

[Fragony]

He spoke Somali very well according to the translator. But yes he is definitely not 15, the system just incentivizes him to lie about his age

Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

[Fragony]

Inconsistencies in your heart my friend. You want to help people in need because you have a good heart and at the same time you would rather keep them all in poverty and squalor outside the walls of Babylon.

Glad to see that you understand that I am not an unkind person. But we don't need a Babylonian tower either.

[Sarmatian]

Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

Not only that, but he has the ability to discern nationalities based on pictures. He's a freakin' prodigy.

[Snowhobbit]

Can only say what he said, he insists that it is a black arab from northen-africa. I believe him because Somali look very different. Mate is not stupid he is fluent is six languages.

I think I'll take the view of the court interpretator before your friends analysis of a picture though.


A minimum of one parent born in Sweden, with Swedish Citizenship, at least 25% Swedish blood, a Swedish name and an ancestry in Sweden stretching back to the pre-Christian period.

Then she can be considered Swedish.

Wow. That is a very... Race driven method. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find support for such a restriction in any of our political parties. Going by blood ties back a millennia, sheesh. I do hope you know that the state of Sweden did not functionally exist during the pre-Christian period?

[Fragony]

I think I'll take the view of the court interpretator before your friends analysis of a picture though

Of course so do I. He is rather defensive about his people upto the unreasonable, he will excuse anything. Not a bad guy, goes to church every sunday, really polite, but nothing can be the fault of Somali's for him, always someone else. But I can see that that guy is not 15 at least, that I am sure of, his identity is faked.

[Snowhobbit]

Of course so do I. He is rather defensive about his people upto the unreasonable, he will excuse anything. Not a bad guy, goes to church every sunday, really polite, but nothing can be the fault of Somali's for him, always someone else. But I can see that that guy is not 15 at least, that I am sure of, his identity is faked.

He does not have an identity. The court documents clearly state that he has not proven his identity in Sweden. Of course group-think can lead to defensiveness up to the point of outright denial, I can certainly see why someone would want to distance themself from this "child".

[Gilrandir]

This is unless the pro-retention group can somehow guarantee that future attacks will be patiently met with a turned cheek (leaving aside other factors that could contribute to integration or alienation-towards-Islamism among Muslims), but it would be naive to imagine that this could be accomplished in the future given the current bitter impasse between them and those screaming "remove kebab" and the trends that have fed it. Yet another paradox that many leftists have stumbled into.



Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-covers-up-naked-statues-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-visit-nude-a6834836.html

[Gilrandir]

Not only that, but he has the ability to discern nationalities based on pictures. He's a freakin' prodigy.

Admit he is a peg better than you. You can discern nationalities only face to face with the people. Jealous?

[Fragony]

He does not have an identity. The court documents clearly state that he has not proven his identity in Sweden. Of course group-think can lead to defensiveness up to the point of outright denial, I can certainly see why someone would want to distance themself from this "child".

I understand that. It's kinda tragic he wears his Dutch pasport as a batch. People who think the Netherlands is an open-minded society are deeply mistaken, he will never be one of 'us' no matter how hard he tries. It's even in our language, autochtoon (native Dutch) and allochtoon (not white, exception for people from former colonies)

[Viking]

Read the link you provided. Even with immigration, the population of Norway will get old. Every fifth person will be over 70 in 2060 in Norway (19% compared to 11% now).
Number of people between 80 and 90 will double (3.4% to 7%)
Number of people over 90 will triple (0.8% t0 2.5%)

Yeah, but that is unavoidable; unless you expect other countries to provide you with a stream of young people for the rest of the world's existence. As things are now, only countries with low life expectancy can expect to avoid this fate in the long run. In the scenario that all countries end up similarly wealthy, there may no be countries with young people to export.


And those will or won't happen irrespective of refugees.

Duh.


And what you said doesn't relate to the topic.

I don't see this sub-debate going anywhere any time soon.


No, because with active measures countries could reduce poverty and raise education levels, for general population as well as immigrants, while there's no way to magically make citizens younger.

Which is to say that any solution does not involve making citizens younger (although it is highly likely that aging can be both halted and reversed at some point in the future), but would rely on things like technology and new ways to arrange society (reforms).


Even if we accept this as true, the only place in Europe where it is true is Scandinavia.

Which also happens/happened to consistently be one of the most peaceful places in Europe.


Apparently, the principal goal of the terrorist organizations is to get those Muslims to the Middle East so they could be radicalized, trained and redirected. So, them being the Middle East is instrumental.

Even if we say that terrorist entities abroad are a vital part of the radicalisation, they are only an issue because there exists a Muslim population in Europe in the first place. The larger this population is, there more people might travel to whatever areas the terrorist entities are active within; and these areas don't have to be very large before they are capable of contributing to such radicalisation (and attempts at destroying such terrorist nests can also increase local radicalisation..).

[Pannonian]

Wow. That is a very... Race driven method. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find support for such a restriction in any of our political parties. Going by blood ties back a millennia, sheesh. I do hope you know that the state of Sweden did not functionally exist during the pre-Christian period?

PFH was joking. The ultimate clue can be seen in the pre-Christian Sweden part.

[Fragony]

Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-covers-up-naked-statues-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-visit-nude-a6834836.html

It's the papacy who decided to do that, not the Italian government. I think it's rediculous but they own the place

[Snowhobbit]

I understand that. It's kinda tragic he wears his Dutch pasport as a batch. People who think the Netherlands is an open-minded society are deeply mistaken, he will never be one of 'us' no matter how hard he tries. It's even in our language, autochtoon (native Dutch) and allochtoon (not white, exception for people from former colonies)

That is a bit sad frankly. What about his kids? What if he had kids with an autochtoon? I'm surprised that Netherlands has not moved on from their colonial history in their language.

PFH was joking. The ultimate clue can be seen in the pre-Christian Sweden part.

Smiley faces are conducive to making sure jokes are understood as such. And given his views in other threads I don't see why that post can't be taken at face value. Certainly there are people who think like that.

[Snowhobbit]

Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-covers-up-naked-statues-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-visit-nude-a6834836.html

Europe is a big place. In France the state visit was cancelled as the French refused to not serve wine at the lunch, and a breakfast was seen as too small.

[Husar]

I understand that. It's kinda tragic he wears his Dutch pasport as a batch. People who think the Netherlands is an open-minded society are deeply mistaken, he will never be one of 'us' no matter how hard he tries. It's even in our language, autochtoon (native Dutch) and allochtoon (not white, exception for people from former colonies)

Actually, it sounds like your language is just full of immigrants as well, because this one is Greek and we have it as well, just not used much outside academical contexts here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthon_(ancient_Greece)

Don't even try to say that it's a native dutch word because you changed two letters. :whip:


PFH was joking. The ultimate clue can be seen in the pre-Christian Sweden part.

Can't be! He just cannot not put a smiley or another overly obvious clue there and expect anyone here to get it! :clown::rolleyes::whip::sweatdrop::dizzy2::stare:


That is a bit sad frankly. What about his kids? What if he had kids with an autochtoon? I'm surprised that Netherlands has not moved on from their colonial history in their language.

In a land far, far away, a people once made a chart for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#/media/File:Nuremberg_laws.jpg

[Snowhobbit]

In a land far, far away, a people once made a chart for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#/media/File:Nuremberg_laws.jpg
Well it is awful generous of the to let the half-bloods mix with the pure-bloods... Well well, there were better things coming out of Nuremberg before the 50s anyway.

[Husar]

Man, Europe is not only ready for another cheek, it actually is ready to swallow its values and principles to please a moneybag offering a nice contract.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-covers-up-naked-statues-iran-president-hassan-rouhani-visit-nude-a6834836.html

Yeah, talking about TTIP, which is getting ready very soon. And while the US steals all our jobs that way, we complain about poor people stealing our jobs. :drama2:

Oh wait, Italy? You mean you expected a country that re-elected a media mogul who was BFFs with Gadaffi, and that now gives him another chance in politics after he was ousted for being corrupt and trying to undermine democratic principles, to be better than that?

As for swallowing all demands of a moneybag, that's capitalism, ever heard of Sheldon Adelson?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265243-mega-donor-adelson-keeps-cruz-and-rubio-guessing

Politicians visit this guy's home in order to get funding from him to run for president. I assume it looks like this:
17481

[Fragony]

Actually, it sounds like your language is just full of immigrants as well, because this one is Greek and we have it as well, just not used much outside academical contexts here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthon_(ancient_Greece)

Don't even try to say that it's a native dutch word because you changed two letters. :whip:


In Greece it's antipolis I think but I'm not sure if that's right, wiki can be wrong. That is more a matter of citizinship though, not a destinction like autochtoon and allochtoon. I could be wrong.

[Sarmatian]

Admit he is a peg better than you. You can discern nationalities only face to face with the people. Jealous?

Not just nationalities. I see a guy, I can tell you his height, weight, blood type and which ninja turtle is his favourite.

[Husar]

In Greece it's antipolis I think but I'm not sure if that's right, wiki can be wrong. That is more a matter of citizinship though, not a destinction like autochtoon and allochtoon. I could be wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autochthon

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de/definition/englisch/autochthon


An original or indigenous inhabitant of a place; an aborigine.
[...]
Late 16th century: from Greek, literally 'sprung from the earth', from autos 'self' + khthōn 'earth, soil'.

Of course the dictionaries could be wrong, too. And maybe you don't even exist. :clown:

[Myth]

Not just nationalities. I see a guy, I can tell you his height, weight, blood type and which ninja turtle is his favourite.

Trick question, everybody likes Master Splinter the best!

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, but that is unavoidable; unless you expect other countries to provide you with a stream of young people for the rest of the world's existence. As things are now, only countries with low life expectancy can expect to avoid this fate in the long run. In the scenario that all countries end up similarly wealthy, there may no be countries with young people to export.

It is a short term solution, but it a solution. You can't raise pension age by 5-10 years immediately and expect no backlash. You can raise it little by little over the next several decades. Bottom line - there is no other way at the moment. You can argue that the backlash won't be that significant it might be better to ride out the storm (with which I disagree), no political establishment will consider it, so it is moot.


Duh.

So why go there? If there's a global catastrophe that threatens world's ability to produce food, we're screwed, 50,000 Muslims more or less in a specific country.


I don't see this sub-debate going anywhere any time soon.
That is very,very true.


Which is to say that any solution does not involve making citizens younger (although it is highly likely that aging can be both halted and reversed at some point in the future), but would rely on things like technology and new ways to arrange society (reforms).

We're talking realistic solution for our age. I don't really give a rat's ass what human's go do in the 29th century.


Which also happens/happened to consistently be one of the most peaceful places in Europe.

It also happens to be the least populated, most out of the way place in Europe, with the worst climate.




Even if we say that terrorist entities abroad are a vital part of the radicalisation, they are only an issue because there exists a Muslim population in Europe in the first place. The larger this population is, there more people might travel to whatever areas the terrorist entities are active within; and these areas don't have to be very large before they are capable of contributing to such radicalisation (and attempts at destroying such terrorist nests can also increase local radicalisation..).

That kind of flies in the face of every single civil liberty and human right, like presumption of innocence. It also defies logic to claim there is a a serious threat when there have been a few dozen, or even hundreds, a European Muslim terrorists out of a population of 50 000 000.

It sometimes defies belief how deep this subconscious racism and bigotry goes. For comparison sake, imagine if US closed its borders for well-off white males, because school shooters are predominantly well-off white, Christian males. Imagine how ludicrous that would even sound. No one would even think about it, because, it's us . We won't think there's a problem with us. We'll seek individual reasons for every single one. No one would stop for a second to think there's something inherently wrong with well-off white, Christian males that makes them a security danger, but most have no problem with labeling another group as problematic based on actions of a very few.

[Snowhobbit]

That kind of flies in the face of every single civil liberty and human right, like presumption of innocence. It also defies logic to claim there is a a serious threat when there have been a few dozen, or even hundreds, a European Muslim terrorists out of a population of 50 000 000.

It sometimes defies belief how deep this subconscious racism and bigotry goes. For comparison sake, imagine if US closed its borders for well-off white males, because school shooters are predominantly well-off white, Christian males. Imagine how ludicrous that would even sound. No one would even think about it, because, it's us . We won't think there's a problem with us. We'll seek individual reasons for every single one. No one would stop for a second to think there's something inherently wrong with well-off white, Christian males that makes them a security danger, but most have no problem with labeling another group as problematic based on actions of a very few.

I'm just curious. Is the German intelligence forces populated with racists? Because they warned last autumn that the influx was a threat to national security for three reasons. 1, the fact that among the influx were terrorists and people with the capacity and intent to commit violent acts. 2, that the large numbers would lead to isolated diasporas which prevent integration and breeds resentment and ultimately violence. 3, the extreme-right response to all of these things.
Is the US under an influx of over 1 million well-off white Christian males who enter their country illegally?

[Snowhobbit]

Trick question, everybody likes Master Splinter the best!

Since when are rats turtles?

[Pannonian]

That kind of flies in the face of every single civil liberty and human right, like presumption of innocence. It also defies logic to claim there is a a serious threat when there have been a few dozen, or even hundreds, a European Muslim terrorists out of a population of 50 000 000.


Have the ever encroaching human rights now included free transit to and from countries, regardless of border policies? Is the UK allowed to have its own borders, or was it overridden by human rights and civil liberties at some point in the past?

[Viking]

It is a short term solution, but it a solution. You can't raise pension age by 5-10 years immediately and expect no backlash. You can raise it little by little over the next several decades. Bottom line - there is no other way at the moment. You can argue that the backlash won't be that significant it might be better to ride out the storm (with which I disagree), no political establishment will consider it, so it is moot.

It can solve the problem with age distribution in the short term, yes; and that's indeed as far as the agreement goes.


So why go there? If there's a global catastrophe that threatens world's ability to produce food, we're screwed, 50,000 Muslims more or less in a specific country.

The context is the sub-debate that didn't go anywhere; e.g. mass-migration over a century or two.


We're talking realistic solution for our age.

So am I, the parenthesis was for accuracy's sake (various forms of anti-aging treatments could very much be relevant for this topic in some decades from now on; so as far as prediction goes, it shouldn't be left out).


It also happens to be the least populated, most out of the way place in Europe, with the worst climate.

Denmark isn't particularly "out of the way", but it didn't get the ethnic division like e.g. "out of the way" Northern Ireland has, introduced.


That kind of flies in the face of every single civil liberty and human right, like presumption of innocence.

Too bad. It's not about anyone's guilt or innocence, but what is actually happening: what the actual consequences of the migration are. I am indifferent to lofty ideals in that context.


It also defies logic to claim there is a a serious threat when there have been a few dozen, or even hundreds, a European Muslim terrorists out of a population of 50 000 000.

Depends on what you mean by "serious threat". It's smart to use a seat belt, but you can drive a car your entire life without really needing it; it depends highly on your luck. Likewise with terrorist attacks.


No one would even think about it, because, it's us .

That's also why the comparison fails. The hypothetical immigration scenario would be roughly similar to simply increase the native population through higher fertility rates. Immigration from countries with radically different cultures, would not be.

[Montmorency]

That's ratcist.

:drummer:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow. That is a very... Race driven method. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find support for such a restriction in any of our political parties. Going by blood ties back a millennia, sheesh. I do hope you know that the state of Sweden did not functionally exist during the pre-Christian period?

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Snowhobbit]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Most impressive trolling, much contribution.

[Myth]

If they can't say the Prayer to the Allfather in Old Norse and spell their father's father name in Elder Futhark then the are not Swedish.

[Beskar]

Most impressive trolling, much contribution.

Oh no, he is serious.

He can trace back his linage to some 600 hundred minor Jarl who lived near Västervik on his fathers side, he however has a decidedly Roman name and English upbringing so does not conform to his own definition of Swedish, but proudly says about his heritage.

[Snowhobbit]

Oh no, he is serious.

He can trace back his linage to some 600 hundred minor Jarl who lived near Västervik on his fathers side, he however has a decidedly Roman name and English upbringing so does not conform to his own definition of Swedish, but proudly says about his heritage.
And what do you require to identify an individual as a Swedish person?

[Fragony]

And what do you require to identify an individual as a Swedish person?

A mixture of self-destruction orchestrated by self-congratulaing women with spikey-hair and Munschausen by proxy should do. Home of the Stepherd-wives

[Husar]

A mixture of self-destruction orchestrated by self-congratulaing women with spikey-hair and Munschausen by proxy should do. Home of the Stepherd-wives

I wish I knew what you said, I have a suspicion that it may be funny.

As for "Teaching those immigrants a lesson!", there is also the France-edition now: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/french-police-abuse-muslims-emergency-laws-160204035243925.html


"France has a responsibility to ensure public safety and try to prevent further attacks, but the police have used their new emergency powers in abusive, discriminatory, and unjustified ways," said Izza Leghtas, Western Europe researcher at HRW, calling for an immediate end to warrantless searches and house arrests.

"This abuse has traumatised families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens."

Apologies for the self-flaggelation and self-hatred. I know they shouldn't cry too much, in the home of the brave, land of the free they would have shot the dog* and maybe the owner, too, people have to too good in Europe.

*if Muslims had dogs

[Snowhobbit]

As for "Teaching those immigrants a lesson!", there is also the France-edition now: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/french-police-abuse-muslims-emergency-laws-160204035243925.html



Apologies for the self-flaggelation and self-hatred. I know they shouldn't cry too much, in the home of the brave, land of the free they would have shot the dog* and maybe the owner, too, people have to too good in Europe.

*if Muslims had dogs

I don't really see the issue. That is how the system works in France, and if "throwing a Quran on the floor" is part of what is needed to prevent another mass murder in Paris/France then that's just how it goes.

[Gilrandir]

Not just nationalities. I see a guy, I can tell you his height, weight, blood type and which ninja turtle is his favourite.

You fall utterly short of my expectations. I thought you could also tell a person's favorite faction in MTW and his ability to handle horse archers.


And what do you require to identify an individual as a Swedish person?

Something evoking "frozen water" in his name.

[Greyblades]

In one house raid, HRW said, police broke four of a disabled man's teeth before they realised he was not the person they were looking for
[...]
In another case recorded by Amnesty, police forced open the door of an elderly man with heart problems, causing him to faint. He was later taken to hospital in an ambulance, while his daughters - one of whom is disabled - were handcuffed and screamed at by officers..Immediately after a terrorist attack of such scale and savagery, I'm surprised the police wern't more abusive to their suspects.


"This abuse has traumatised families and tarnished reputations, leaving targets feeling like second-class citizens."I'm pretty sure it was the terrorists not the police that tarnished their reputations.

[Husar]

I don't really see the issue. That is how the system works in France, and if "throwing a Quran on the floor" is part of what is needed to prevent another mass murder in Paris/France then that's just how it goes.

Why did France attack Gaddhafi if their system is basically the same?


.Immediately after a terrorist attack of such scale and savagery, I'm surprised the police wern't more abusive to their suspects.

Because two wrongs make a right? If an Englishman stabbed someone with a knife in London should they raid your house and lead you naked outside in the middle of the night because you're an Englishman, too? Seems right in the spirit of the Magna Carta, no?


I'm pretty sure it was the terrorists not the police that tarnished their reputations.

And this is why we need lynch mobs and trials by ordeal back!

[Greyblades]

I see you're in another "Overusing strawmen and misrepresentations to hide my current inability to debate" phase.

Or is this a "I've lost faith in my reasoning but I am still unable to change my viewpoint and the ensuing mental struggle causing me to fail to fully comprehend the oppositions posts" phase?

I can rarely tell which.

[Snowhobbit]

Why did France attack Gaddhafi if their system is basically the same?



Would you please direct me to the French torture chambers?
How many lives is a Quran on the floor worth to you? When an apartment gets searched they tend to do it quickly. I got my bags searched in an airport once and you don't see me crying about it.

[Husar]

I see you're in another "Overusing strawmen and misrepresentations to hide my current inability to debate" phase.

Or is this a "I've lost faith in my reasoning but I am still unable to change my viewpoint and the ensuing mental struggle causing me to fail to fully comprehend the oppositions posts" phase?

I can rarely tell which.

I don't know what phase of dismissal you're in but we tend to have laws and judges for a reason. These searches were warrantless and apparently mostly random if there were hardly any arrests. We have an entire police brutality thread in the Backroom where similar cases are frowned upon and yet here it is all fine because "terrorism and they're all brown", which is not a direct quote in case it makes you angry otherwise.


Would you please direct me to the French torture chambers?
How many lives is a Quran on the floor worth to you? When an apartment gets searched they tend to do it quickly. I got my bags searched in an airport once and you don't see me crying about it.

There was not just a quran on the floor:

In another case recorded by Amnesty, police forced open the door of an elderly man with heart problems, causing him to faint. He was later taken to hospital in an ambulance, while his daughters - one of whom is disabled - were handcuffed and screamed at by officers.


Many of those interviewed said they were now scared of the police and have been shunned by their neighbours. Some said they were seeking to leave the country out of fear.

The latter may be the desired effect of such measures. You basically ruin the lives of people by making all their neighbors suspect them (really helps integration!) and make them lose trust in the government.


France's government has said it will ask parliament to renew the state of emergency for another three months.

"But it has not provided compelling evidence that would justify the need to continue these sweeping measures," said HRW.

And then you also extend these "do whatever you want"-powers because it's so nice to have them and you just want to save people.
My point can also be found in the article:


"Freedom, equality and fraternity have been badly damaged in the weeks since the November attacks. France should live by those words and restore their meaning."

I'm worried about our western values, but it's not the muslims who are eroding them, a few of them just push the right buttons and then we do it ourselves.

[Snowhobbit]

There was not just a quran on the floor:




The latter may be the desired effect of such measures. You basically ruin the lives of people by making all their neighbors suspect them (really helps integration!) and make them lose trust in the government.



And then you also extend these "do whatever you want"-powers because it's so nice to have them and you just want to save people.
My point can also be found in the article:



I'm worried about our western values, but it's not the muslims who are eroding them, a few of them just push the right buttons and then we do it ourselves.
When there is a state of emergency then those rules apply. If the rules say no warrants are needed, then no warrants are needed.

It is generally common for police officers to handcuff people when making arrests or detaining individuals.

I suppose they can queue up behind the jews who are leaving the country due to actual danger.

[Husar]

When there is a state of emergency then those rules apply. If the rules say no warrants are needed, then no warrants are needed.

A state of emergency usually requires some kind of emergency. Since they hardly charged anyone after a lot of raids, why the state of emergency? And noone has to believe their emergency rules are fair.


It is generally common for police officers to handcuff people when making arrests or detaining individuals.

That doesn't change that plenty of people around the globe complain about HOW they do it and TO WHOM they do it at times. Are they all wrong?


I suppose they can queue up behind the jews who are leaving the country due to actual danger.

What does that have to do with this issue or are we back to "two wrongs make a right"?

[Husar]

Just to be fair to Fragony, I found one of these rare, crazy arabophile dhimmis you keep mentioning:

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bis-zum-abitur-verpflichtend-bildungsexperte-fordert-arabisch-als-schulsprache-fuer-deutsche-kinder_id_5259248.html?fbc=fb-shares

There is this german "education expert" who seriously suggested we should introduce Arabic as a second language in school that is a valid school language in general next to German (i.e. maths for example could be taught in German and Arabic even varying within a lesson as everyone should understand both). He justifies that by saying that we should prepare for the important transofrmations that will happen in the arabic world within the next decades and that will make it an important economic, cultural and political partner to whom we can then advertise ourselves better.

I have to say I laughed because this really does sound crazy and I can think of half a dozen languages I would rather give this position to, most importantly English (which Arabs can/should and do also learn...).
So yeah, it's almost like finding a yeti for me, but crazy multicultists do apparently exist. ~;)

[Snowhobbit]

A state of emergency usually requires some kind of emergency. Since they hardly charged anyone after a lot of raids, why the state of emergency? And noone has to believe their emergency rules are fair.



That doesn't change that plenty of people around the globe complain about HOW they do it and TO WHOM they do it at times. Are they all wrong?



What does that have to do with this issue or are we back to "two wrongs make a right"?

I guess the November and January events were just regular things happening on a daily basis. I was unaware that you had access to the French intelligence services and have assessed that there is no real threat, most impressive. Fair or not, those are the rules.

Plenty of people complain here when we arrest rapists and murders, should we listen to them also? People complain about everything and anything, complaints alone do not make for a valid argument.

It has something to do with you believing that there is no reason for a state of emergency, that there is nothing going on in France and everything is just business as usual.

[Greyblades]

I don't know what phase of dismissal you're in but we tend to have laws and judges for a reason. These searches were warrantless and apparently mostly random if there were hardly any arrests. We have an entire police brutality thread in the Backroom where similar cases are frowned upon and yet here it is all fine because "terrorism and they're all brown", which is not a direct quote in case it makes you angry otherwise.

And if you were paying attention you would realize that my post was in no way an endorsement or even a condonement of their actions.

Were you not so eager to misiniterpret any post not in perfect agreement with your point of view and attempt to portray the person as irrational racists you would have seen that.

[Montmorency]

German and Arabic should therefore be obligatory for all students until graduation

Yeah, that's pretty silly. If you're going to have mandatory language instruction, have it for English and German, while leaving aside parallel language classes (also mandatory) in which students choose to study an available language, e.g. French, Spanish, Russian - and all the way through Latin, Arabic, and Mandarin Chinese, depending on staff availability in given schools or districts. That is, both English and German would be a part of all general curriculum, while 'Selective Language Study' would be language education classes, with each student choosing to study a language of their preference (again, based on available choices, but at least for European languages that shouldn't be a problem).

[Husar]

I guess the November and January events were just regular things happening on a daily basis. I was unaware that you had access to the French intelligence services and have assessed that there is no real threat, most impressive. Fair or not, those are the rules.

Plenty of people complain here when we arrest rapists and murders, should we listen to them also? People complain about everything and anything, complaints alone do not make for a valid argument.

It has something to do with you believing that there is no reason for a state of emergency, that there is nothing going on in France and everything is just business as usual.

IIRC the article mentions some 3200 raids with about 5 arrests. Please explain how that hints towards them having concrete evidence.
As for that's the rules, insert Godwin here...


And if you were paying attention you would realize that my post was in no way an endorsement or even a condonement of their actions.

Were you not so eager to misiniterpret any post not in perfect agreement with your point of view and attempt to portray the person as irrational racists you would have seen that.

I see, your post was essentially not saying anything. Well done then, go on.

[Montmorency]

I guess the November and January events were just regular things happening on a daily basis. I was unaware that you had access to the French intelligence services and have assessed that there is no real threat, most impressive. Fair or not, those are the rules.

Plenty of people complain here when we arrest rapists and murders, should we listen to them also? People complain about everything and anything, complaints alone do not make for a valid argument.

It has something to do with you believing that there is no reason for a state of emergency, that there is nothing going on in France and everything is just business as usual.

THat's all orthogonal to the point though. To turn in around: what do you know of the details of France's state-of-emergency policy, its current implementation, and the general conditions that permit it to be invoked? On the other hand, what in the abstract is the use of a state-of-emergency policy and how should it be formulated or regulated? These are the relevant questions here.

[Snowhobbit]

THat's all orthogonal to the point though. To turn in around: what do you know of the details of France's state-of-emergency policy, its current implementation, and the general conditions that permit it to be invoked? On the other hand, what in the abstract is the use of a state-of-emergency policy and how should it be formulated or regulated? These are the relevant questions here.

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

IIRC the article mentions some 3200 raids with about 5 arrests. Please explain how that hints towards them having concrete evidence.
As for that's the rules, insert Godwin here...

Yep, concentration camps next up. I dunno, I would have thought that you would become better at forming an argument after more than a decade on the forum, but you only seem to devolve. Sad to see.

[Montmorency]

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

A common rhetorical formula, but not an interesting argument with pertinent details or sound judgements. The basic question is the same as was asked in 2001 America regarding civil liberties vis-a-vis government emergency powers, whether the focus is on the efficacy, the legitimacy, the ethical stakes, or what-have-you. Your comment would be simplistic even by the standards of the 2001-contemporary discussion, but I'll break it down:


I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil.

What does that have to do with the specific conditions, obligations, and policies involved with such decisions?


I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse

Do you? And whether or not there has been widespread complaint, or what even constitutes "widespread" is still tangential to the fundamental issue of specific powers and conditions involved, which is ultimately what we care about.


and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented

The kill count? Well, if there is violence at a sporting event, and 12 hours later there is no longer violence, is it that the immediate police or security response to the disturbance is to be pointed at - and so there should henceforth be a strong security presence at sporting events - or is it that 12 hours after the event, everyone had already gone home?


But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

That's not the question at hand.

[Fragony]

Just to be fair to Fragony, I found one of these rare, crazy arabophile dhimmis you keep mentioning:

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bis-zum-abitur-verpflichtend-bildungsexperte-fordert-arabisch-als-schulsprache-fuer-deutsche-kinder_id_5259248.html?fbc=fb-shares

There is this german "education expert" who seriously suggested we should introduce Arabic as a second language in school that is a valid school language in general next to German (i.e. maths for example could be taught in German and Arabic even varying within a lesson as everyone should understand both). He justifies that by saying that we should prepare for the important transofrmations that will happen in the arabic world within the next decades and that will make it an important economic, cultural and political partner to whom we can then advertise ourselves better.

I have to say I laughed because this really does sound crazy and I can think of half a dozen languages I would rather give this position to, most importantly English (which Arabs can/should and do also learn...).
So yeah, it's almost like finding a yeti for me, but crazy multicultists do apparently exist. ~;)

Not so rare, but a good example

[Husar]

I know that it was implemented after one of the worst terror attacks in recent times on European soil. I know that there is not widespread complaint about abuse, and I know that the kill count has fallen dramatically after the steps were implemented. But sure, we can keep crying about Qurans on the floor, how many lives is that worth?

Montmorency has already adressed this really well, especially to the point about "widespread complaint about abuse" I would like to add two things:
1. The raids targeted a community that has raised "widespread complaint about abuse" for a long time now, so maybe you were just not aware of it.
2. It was also known for a while that a lot of French citizens of all colors think of their police as comparatively brutal, you can also count that as "widespread complaint about abuse" as far as I'm concerned.


Yep, concentration camps next up. I dunno, I would have thought that you would become better at forming an argument after more than a decade on the forum, but you only seem to devolve. Sad to see.

That's a nice personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, my point was not so much about concentration camps but a general critique of your point that "these are the rules", which is easy to say as long as you agree with them but does not make the rules just or fair or morally supportable. I could have also mentioned pretty much every dictator or the Russian law that makes being homosexual in public a crime. What about North Korea? Do you have no qualms with their rules? Yes, I know, we are talking about France and it's certainly not North Korea, but a country does not have to be that for its rules to be inadequate, wrong or morally reprehensible. Not to forget that some big changes come in baby steps and people only realize it when it is too late.
I may have asked this before, can you explain how having warrantless searches of thousands of people, their entire homes etc. is within the spirit of western democratic culture?
Things like everybody is equal before the law, due process etc. all these pillars of justice seem to be out the window during this state of emergency, so yes, we should ask whether thie is warranted, both the state of emergency itself and the powers it gives to the government and police.

Can you, for example, show any attacks or plans for attacks that lasted for five months and would warrant having a state of emergency for that long? And if there is ample evidence, why have a state of emergency if you could easily get warrants with your evidence even without the state of emergency?

[Husar]

Here's an article in English: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/03/german-university-president-floats-idea-of-mandatory-arabic-in-primary-schools/


“We would appreciate being a country of immigration and multiple languages,” Strothotte said. “Refugee children need to learn German and German children Arabic.”

Strothotte believes increased understanding of Arabic will have positive effects on Germany culturally, economically and politically.

[...]

“We must finally acknowledge that Arabic is a world language,” he said. “We have to stay on pace.”

[Pannonian]

Just to be fair to Fragony, I found one of these rare, crazy arabophile dhimmis you keep mentioning:

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/bis-zum-abitur-verpflichtend-bildungsexperte-fordert-arabisch-als-schulsprache-fuer-deutsche-kinder_id_5259248.html?fbc=fb-shares

There is this german "education expert" who seriously suggested we should introduce Arabic as a second language in school that is a valid school language in general next to German (i.e. maths for example could be taught in German and Arabic even varying within a lesson as everyone should understand both). He justifies that by saying that we should prepare for the important transofrmations that will happen in the arabic world within the next decades and that will make it an important economic, cultural and political partner to whom we can then advertise ourselves better.

I have to say I laughed because this really does sound crazy and I can think of half a dozen languages I would rather give this position to, most importantly English (which Arabs can/should and do also learn...).
So yeah, it's almost like finding a yeti for me, but crazy multicultists do apparently exist. ~;)

In the UK, what's not so rare is the professional ethnic offence finder. People who take up causes to take offence of one ethnic group or another on the basis of very little. And by professional ethnic offence finder, I mean every bit of the description, literally; someone in a paid position to represent all ethnic minorities, who will use their initiative to denounce each and every government action and inaction as racially biased and insensitive. What's bad about these twats is: firstly, their initiative in denouncing everything means things that actually matter are devalued; secondly, they are racist as well, denouncing others freely as bounty bars, bananas, and similar pejoratives. In some ways, they're even worse than neo-Nazis. Very, very few people, and no one in government, takes notice of neo-Nazis. But professional offence finders find a sizeable niche of sympathisers within the left, with their voice making governments of the left both less likely and less credible. They're scum like the neo-Nazis, but unlike neo-Nazis, they're supported by a sizeable cadre of idiots.

[Beskar]

I thought everyone was learning English so there was no need for other languages? Got Turks, Germans, Dutch, Serbs, Russians, Japanese, Swedes... All speaking English. Let's disband other languages! People are thinking too small with learning multiple.

Down with political correctness. :smash:

[Snowhobbit]

A common rhetorical formula, but not an interesting argument with pertinent details or sound judgements. The basic question is the same as was asked in 2001 America regarding civil liberties vis-a-vis government emergency powers, whether the focus is on the efficacy, the legitimacy, the ethical stakes, or what-have-you. Your comment would be simplistic even by the standards of the 2001-contemporary discussion, but I'll break it down:



What does that have to do with the specific conditions, obligations, and policies involved with such decisions?



Do you? And whether or not there has been widespread complaint, or what even constitutes "widespread" is still tangential to the fundamental issue of specific powers and conditions involved, which is ultimately what we care about.



The kill count? Well, if there is violence at a sporting event, and 12 hours later there is no longer violence, is it that the immediate police or security response to the disturbance is to be pointed at - and so there should henceforth be a strong security presence at sporting events - or is it that 12 hours after the event, everyone had already gone home?



That's not the question at hand.

Do they not have the right to a fair trial? Have there been extra-judicial executions or imprisonments, of citizens and foreign nationals? Unless you count the bombing of ISIS there has not, and it is thus not comparable to the 2001 American situation.

If there had not been terror attacks, would the measures have been implemented? That is why it is relevant.

Other than an Amnesty report about police using words and handcuffs while investigating, I have not seen any widespread complaining. You are of course welcome to prove otherwise.

Are you saying the events in November are comparable to a soccer game?

Husar was crying about the Quran, hence the question of how many people died a single Quran on a floor is worth.


Montmorency has already adressed this really well, especially to the point about "widespread complaint about abuse" I would like to add two things:
1. The raids targeted a community that has raised "widespread complaint about abuse" for a long time now, so maybe you were just not aware of it.
2. It was also known for a while that a lot of French citizens of all colors think of their police as comparatively brutal, you can also count that as "widespread complaint about abuse" as far as I'm concerned.



That's a nice personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, my point was not so much about concentration camps but a general critique of your point that "these are the rules", which is easy to say as long as you agree with them but does not make the rules just or fair or morally supportable. I could have also mentioned pretty much every dictator or the Russian law that makes being homosexual in public a crime. What about North Korea? Do you have no qualms with their rules? Yes, I know, we are talking about France and it's certainly not North Korea, but a country does not have to be that for its rules to be inadequate, wrong or morally reprehensible. Not to forget that some big changes come in baby steps and people only realize it when it is too late.
I may have asked this before, can you explain how having warrantless searches of thousands of people, their entire homes etc. is within the spirit of western democratic culture?
Things like everybody is equal before the law, due process etc. all these pillars of justice seem to be out the window during this state of emergency, so yes, we should ask whether thie is warranted, both the state of emergency itself and the powers it gives to the government and police.

Can you, for example, show any attacks or plans for attacks that lasted for five months and would warrant having a state of emergency for that long? And if there is ample evidence, why have a state of emergency if you could easily get warrants with your evidence even without the state of emergency?

Yes, insinuations of being a Nazi are way more classy than critiquing your "style of arguing".

There is always complaint about abuse among those who choose to clash with law enforcement agencies. I am unaware of protesters being shot at in the streets or the government planting bombs to kill civilians however.

Well, this might be news to you, but we live with what is known as "Rule of law", and have additionally signed a whole bunch of treaties that even ban the death penalty, let alone concentration camps. But sure, keep making the argument that locking up people who break the law, and conducting police actions within the constraints of the law is somehow akin to the Third Reich, it really makes you look cool.

It is perfectly simple, everyone is equal before the law and the French law allows, certain conditions being fulfilled for a state of emergency. That state of emergency suspends or alters certain rights. But I forget, all Muslims in France are now locked up in Vichy death camps or being worked to the bone in the factories as slaves.

Now do excuse me while I go and call my friend the head of the French intelligence services to provide you with the details of prevented attacks.

[HopAlongBunny]

Maybe we need more clowns?


https://youtu.be/n85LwLsvSfc

[Husar]

Husar was crying about the Quran

Please come back when you want to have a serious discussion, thankyouverymuch.

[Snowhobbit]

Please come back when you want to have a serious discussion, thankyouverymuch.

Please return once you have mastered the ability to argue without going "Holocause in 3.2.1." :)

[Greyblades]

In the UK, what's not so rare is the professional ethnic offence finder. People who take up causes to take offence of one ethnic group or another on the basis of very little. And by professional ethnic offence finder, I mean every bit of the description, literally; someone in a paid position to represent all ethnic minorities, who will use their initiative to denounce each and every government action and inaction as racially biased and insensitive. What's bad about these twats is: firstly, their initiative in denouncing everything means things that actually matter are devalued; secondly, they are racist as well, denouncing others freely as bounty bars, bananas, and similar pejoratives. In some ways, they're even worse than neo-Nazis. Very, very few people, and no one in government, takes notice of neo-Nazis. But professional offence finders find a sizeable niche of sympathisers within the left, with their voice making governments of the left both less likely and less credible. They're scum like the neo-Nazis, but unlike neo-Nazis, they're supported by a sizeable cadre of idiots.

Fortunately they are mostly only found in the opinion section of the guardian and thus are largely ignorable.

[Greyblades]

Please come back when you want to have a serious discussion, thankyouverymuch.

:inquisitive:


Because two wrongs make a right? If an Englishman stabbed someone with a knife in London should they raid your house and lead you naked outside in the middle of the night because you're an Englishman, too? Seems right in the spirit of the Magna Carta, no?

And this is why we need lynch mobs and trials by ordeal back!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/586/006/484.jpg

[Pannonian]

Fortunately they are mostly only found in the opinion section of the guardian and thus are largely ignorable.

They help perpetuate right wing governments by discrediting the left.

[Greyblades]

Hey man, I said they were ignorable, I didnt say noone listens to them.

[Husar]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/586/006/484.jpg

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12670093_1061876073871737_2579107585202297945_n.jpg?oh=bec38583616ff9f5962282b69bf045f1&oe=577076ED

[Sarmatian]

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12670093_1061876073871737_2579107585202297945_n.jpg?oh=bec38583616ff9f5962282b69bf045f1&oe=577076ED

Very true, but, to be fair, it is only true here. In India, they are individuals we represent the whites. Rest of the world is just as racist as the west is.

They just have less money and influence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh no, he is serious.

He can trace back his linage to some 600 hundred minor Jarl who lived near Västervik on his fathers side, he however has a decidedly Roman name and English upbringing so does not conform to his own definition of Swedish, but proudly says about his heritage.

Close, it was around 900-1,000 AD his name was Tord - he built the first Church in the region.

The joke was that I do have a Swedish name - Wallinder - and my father is Swedish by nationality and I'm roughly 25% Swedish by blood.

However, I would not claim to be Swedish.

[Greyblades]

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/12670093_1061876073871737_2579107585202297945_n.jpg?oh=bec38583616ff9f5962282b69bf045f1&oe=577076ED

I wasnt expecting you to actually improve, but I at least expected you to be interesting.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/041/613/1267290400659.jpg

[Fragony]

Lesson learned, from Russia with love http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/

go team Russia, if even Norway expells you for bad behaviour...

[Brenus]

"For example, many Soviet atheists were good at killing priests and destroying buildings of great architectural and historic value (aka churches)" They probably were. Do I side with them? What a curious question indeed: so, no. I mean for the part of "great architectural and historic value". Do you have clear example of atheists (Soviet) killing priest in kind of auto-da-fé (meaning not during war times)or it is just part of the rhetoric?
And as destruction of "holly" buildings, the faithful and believers are way ahead in the contest, when it is about to destroy buildings of faith from the others faiths, from the Christians destroying the Pagan sites in Europe then South America (well, around the world), or Christians killing priests of the slightly different Christians and their temples on the top of them, or will the destruction of Mosques within the Muslim religion do? And of course the burning of synagogues by all the others. Don't worry, I do include in this list (not exhaustive one) the Pagans and Polytheists in the description.
The Cathedral of Lyon (The Primatiale des Gaules (Fourvieres), not the other one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyon_Cathedral) was built on the top of a Roman temple, itself build on a Gaulish Temple, itself built on a first inhabitants holly grove of the site...
And I supposed we all aware of what happen the Cathedral of Constantinople when the town became Istanbul...:yes:

[Snowhobbit]

I wasnt expecting you to actually improve, but I at least expected you to be interesting.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/041/613/1267290400659.jpg

I think it would be better for you if you only expect him to become worse. At least then you can't be disappointed :)

Close, it was around 900-1,000 AD his name was Tord - he built the first Church in the region.

The joke was that I do have a Swedish name - Wallinder - and my father is Swedish by nationality and I'm roughly 25% Swedish by blood.

However, I would not claim to be Swedish.
And would this be because you were actually born and raised in UK with UK values? Or because the blood quota isn't high enough? :P

[Husar]

I wasnt expecting you to actually improve, but I at least expected you to be interesting.

If you're trying to condition me, I suggest you get a dog.

[Beskar]

Hey look, it is my avatar.

[Gilrandir]

In another case recorded by Amnesty, police forced open the door of an elderly man with heart problems, causing him to faint. He was later taken to hospital in an ambulance, while his daughters - one of whom is disabled - were handcuffed and screamed at by officers.


A possible perspective:
If a woman sees something like that happen to her family member she is likely to get hysteric, and this hysterics is as often as not stopped by slapping her face. The police equivalent to face slapping is hadcuffing and sceaming at her.

[Gilrandir]

Do you have clear example of atheists (Soviet) killing priest in kind of auto-da-fé (meaning not during war times)or it is just part of the rhetoric?

War times killings are not very different if a priest was not an open enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

News of the rightist military coup in 1936 unleashed a social revolutionary response, and no republican region escaped revolutionary and anticlerical violence - though in the Basque Country this was minimal. The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military rising), as well as attacks on landowners, industrialists, and politicians, and the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.


But if you insist on the data of peaceful times killings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)


The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.




And as destruction of "holly" buildings, the faithful and believers are way ahead in the contest, when it is about to destroy buildings of faith from the others faiths, from the Christians destroying the Pagan sites in Europe then South America (well, around the world), or Christians killing priests of the slightly different Christians and their temples on the top of them, or will the destruction of Mosques within the Muslim religion do?
I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God. But, unlike you, I don't side with either side, forgive my pun. While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do. Both sides have been known to do nasty things to their opponents, so it is not about being religious or atheist. Just politics.

[Brenus]

All right: Check the casualties during the Spanish Civil War and you will learn about killings. And to provide Spanish Civil War as an example of Atheist Soviet killings... The Catholic Church having, as usual, supported the Fascist side, you cannot considered the priests as innocent bystanders. The killings by Fascists/"Priest supported" on Anarchists and Communists were much higher than that.
http://www.albavolunteer.org/2011/09/paul-preston-on-the-spanish-holocaust/

"While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do" :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: No, you do. I am the one saying when "atheists" do killing it not for faith but for politic, on the grounds you don't kill on the name of nothing. Religions ADD faith to political motives for killings.
In summary, atheists and religions kill for politic but religions put a surplus in motives. You see, unlike religions, atheists have no books or holy men telling them to do the killings. :book2:
"I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God" Gods. That is where the beginning of the trouble starts.

About your link, Stalin spared no one, and Priest were no exception (why should they?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day" From our text: "More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone".
So, Stalin killed more atheists than religious, apparently. Does it means he was a religious person?

[Gilrandir]

All right: Check the casualties during the Spanish Civil War and you will learn about killings. And to provide Spanish Civil War as an example of Atheist Soviet killings... The Catholic Church having, as usual, supported the Fascist side, you cannot considered the priests as innocent bystanders. The killings by Fascists/"Priest supported" on Anarchists and Communists were much higher than that.
http://www.albavolunteer.org/2011/09/paul-preston-on-the-spanish-holocaust/

"While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do" :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: No, you do. I am the one saying when "atheists" do killing it not for faith but for politic, on the grounds you don't kill on the name of nothing. Religions ADD faith to political motives for killings.
In summary, atheists and religions kill for politic but religions put a surplus in motives. You see, unlike religions, atheists have no books or holy men telling them to do the killings. :book2:
"I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God" Gods. That is where the beginning of the trouble starts.

About your link, Stalin spared no one, and Priest were no exception (why should they?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day" From our text: "More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone".
So, Stalin killed more atheists than religious, apparently. Does it means he was a religious person?

My all arguments through many religion-connected dicussions with you were: the reasons don't matter, the killings do. What is the difference how you justify killing people? If people are killed, who cares whether it is the book that "made" you do this, a" holy" man or the General secretary of the Central committee of the Communist party?

The faithful and the atheists have different reasons for killing, but it doesn't make any of them better than the others. You seem to think that killing for religious reasons is worse that otherwise. :shrug:

[Husar]

A possible perspective:
If a woman sees something like that happen to her family member she is likely to get hysteric, and this hysterics is as often as not stopped by slapping her face. The police equivalent to face slapping is hadcuffing and sceaming at her.

So you agree what they did was wrong?

[Montmorency]

If a woman sees something like that happen to her family member she is likely to get hysteric, and this hysterics is as often as not stopped by slapping her face.

...

What?

[Gilrandir]

So you agree what they did was wrong?

I read only the woman's (women's) side of the story, so I can't judge until I hear what the policemen said (if they did say anything). What if the women tried to attack them and pervent their relative being arrested?

[Snowhobbit]

Considering I didn't at any point make any comments referring to the topic, it would be a very long stretch to suggest that I was suggesting anything of the sort.


It is not me who has the issue.

But surely you do not have a monopoly on misattributing notions to other people?

While it is good if you don't have any issues with that, you could still answer the question.

[Papewaio]

Hey look, it is my avatar.

Certainly rings a bell.

I'll show my way out now.

[HopAlongBunny]

hmmm,

Dog + Bell

Why am i drooling!?

:dizzy2:

[Fragony]

Happy New Year Germa y thread was merged here as well? Can't find it.

Anyways, je n'est pas Charlie, but this cartoon is pretty brilliant http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate

I know it's offensive but sarcasm should be