IMMIGRATION thread [Archive] - Page 8

Greyblades

02-12-2016, 20:03

Husar

02-12-2016, 22:51

I'm not sure how he got to that conclusion either, I was tempted to leave out that bit but I decided to present the quote in full.

Edit/ It might relate with the top comments of your article:

"It's unclear why The Guardian is running this article if they are unwilling to establish any facts about the case. Had the family been living in Turkey for years? Had they been given an apartment? If so, why did this gentleman choose to endanger the lives of his children?
There may be answers to these questions, but if a newspaper refuses to even ask them they are failing in their first duty."

"This man was not a refugee; he was an economic migrant who endangered the lives of his family through the dishonest circumvention of the immigration and refugee rules in place in Europe: and rules to which everyone is subject, including people more deserving than this opportunist. I am sorry that he lost his family, but the responsibility for this is his and his alone: it is certainly not the responsibility of Europe or the World, and it is certainly not my responsibility. I do not think that there is anything more to say, other than that I found the sentimental wallowing of the world over the indecently exhibited images of a dead child, and prior to any proper investigation of the facts of the case, a depraved and sickening betrayal of all accepted standards of journalistic ethics."

Took a bit of searching, but apparently there is some controversy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232251/Aylan-father-s-REAL-story-Abdullah-Kurdi-forced-deny-smuggler-new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html

The following quote may explain why they moved though, I also don't quite see how a life of a criminal in Turkey is basically seen as a perfectly viable alternative while we do not want anyone working illegally here.

It is a question which has haunted all who knew the Kurdis. One significant factor may well have been the difficulties which would have lain ahead for Aylan and his brother in getting access to education or health care in Turkey, where their prospects as both Syrian refugees and Kurds were doubly blighted.

He was basically on the pursuit of happiness, isn't that an inherent western value/right of a person? ~;)

Greyblades

02-12-2016, 23:50

Participating in criminal activities and getting your family killed in it's persuit is generally frowned upon.

Husar

02-13-2016, 00:48

Participating in criminal activities and getting your family killed in it's persuit is generally frowned upon.

What criminal activities? Working illegally in Turkey or illegally crossing a border? What about the criminal activities that made him leave his country in the first place? Don't count?

Greyblades

02-13-2016, 01:06

What criminal activities? Working illegally in Turkey or illegally crossing a border?
Even without the allegation he was a smuggler not smugglee; few nations encourage the illegal version of immigration, even the americans.

Or should I say: "few nations, except the suicidal ones."

Fragony

02-13-2016, 03:13

What criminal activities? Working illegally in Turkey or illegally crossing a border? What about the criminal activities that made him leave his country in the first place? Don't count?

He was a human-trafficker who used that kid to assure people everything was safe, he made the trip multible times

Husar

02-13-2016, 11:20

He was a human-trafficker who used that kid to assure people everything was safe, he made the trip multible times

Any links?

Fragony

02-13-2016, 12:11

Husar

02-13-2016, 15:18

pick one you think is credible http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=drowned+kid+human+trafficker&gbv=2&oq=drowned+kid+human+trafficker&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...5072.29590.0.33263.37.12.4.21.23.0.229.1362.3j8j1.12.0....0...1ac.1j4.34.heirloom-hp..20.17.1441.NejZJTFaBXg

Doesn't make the picture any less iconic of course but things are not as they seem. The usual reaction, people who jumped on it simply don't want to talk about it anymore

You did note that I posted two sources, one from December 2015, which said that the allegations that he were a smuggler were at best unproven and shady? One of the sources I posted even had a relatively good explanation:

The facts proved otherwise. Investigations into the smuggling operations in Turkey showed that refugees were often tasked with helping smugglers sign up passengers for smuggling trips. Their language skills and contacts inside refugee communities made them ideal as middlemen. It was also not uncommon for one of the passengers to be given the responsibility of driving the boat. No smuggler, with family in Turkey and a steady income from the lucrative smuggling trade, would want to end up illegally in Europe and risk not being able to return home, where he would be likely to face arrest anyway.

Now I will grant you that it is strange to call this a fact that proves he's not a smuggler, but to say he is one just because he steered the boat is equally not based on solid reasoning. It's also interesting that he was recklessly endangering his family while those who do not take their family with them on the journey are blamed for leaving without their family. Now if thewre were a reported case where someone had a chance to flee but stayed and got himself and his family killed by ISIS I guess people would also say he recklessly endangered his family. All in all these people obviously ruin the lives of their families no matter what they do. :dizzy2:

Pannonian

02-13-2016, 18:36

Took a bit of searching, but apparently there is some controversy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3232251/Aylan-father-s-REAL-story-Abdullah-Kurdi-forced-deny-smuggler-new-questions-emerge-picture-shook-world.html

The following quote may explain why they moved though, I also don't quite see how a life of a criminal in Turkey is basically seen as a perfectly viable alternative while we do not want anyone working illegally here.

He was basically on the pursuit of happiness, isn't that an inherent western value/right of a person? ~;)

A more pertinent question is, do these supposedly inherent western values and rights override border controls? In your view they probably do, since earlier you favoured forcibly imposing refugees/migrants on the UK, even though our existing agreements guarantee our borders. And also, you'd blamed the lack of policing of these refugees/migrants on Merkel being elected, with her policies of drawing down the police. Even though no one outside Germany had anything to do with electing Merkel.

In short, does Germany have the right to impose its views on the rest of Europe, as you've seemed to suggest? If the German people decide something is right, is it up to the rest of Europe to help pay the bill?

Fragony

02-13-2016, 18:54

Everything will be ok if we pray more. Face it Husar Merkel is no longer sane.

Greyblades

02-13-2016, 19:01

The facts proved otherwise. Investigations into the smuggling operations in Turkey showed that refugees were often tasked with helping smugglers sign up passengers for smuggling trips. Their language skills and contacts inside refugee communities made them ideal as middlemen. It was also not uncommon for one of the passengers to be given the responsibility of driving the boat. No smuggler, with family in Turkey and a steady income from the lucrative smuggling trade, would want to end up illegally in Europe and risk not being able to return home, where he would be likely to face arrest anyway. Where's this quote from?

Husar

02-13-2016, 19:28

A more pertinent question is, do these supposedly inherent western values and rights override border controls?

Inherent? People died fighting for some of them. We pride ourselves on not discriminating on gender because it's not the womens' fault that they are physically weaker, but god beware if you were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line, then we'd rather watch you starve on the other side of that line than offer you a tent on our side. I simply think that this is a very strange world view that focuses so much on imaginary lines that people drew with a lot of greed and hatred in many, many wars. And before people drew such lines they believed that the bloodlines or tribes or whatever were the only way to divide them from their neighbors, that view turned out to be wrong. Yes, the romans, Greeks and a few others had different ideas long before that, but especially the Romans, which PVC likes so much, were apparently not afraid to have all kinds of different people within their borders as long as they followed certain laws, no?

In your view they probably do, since earlier you favoured forcibly imposing refugees/migrants on the UK, even though our existing agreements guarantee our borders. And also, you'd blamed the lack of policing of these refugees/migrants on Merkel being elected, with her policies of drawing down the police. Even though no one outside Germany had anything to do with electing Merkel.

I'd actually favor if "UK" were just an administrative region of a properly established democratic EU where we'd all get along, but that's a different topic and a pipe dream at this point. What I'm not sure about is what the lack of policing in Germany has to do with forcing immigrants on other countries. I also wouldn't say we should force them on other countries, I'm saying other countries may be very nasty countries for refusing to take them, it's a moral argument, yes. Poland for example is far worse than the UK though, the UK already has a huge amount of relatively recent immigrants.

In short, does Germany have the right to impose its views on the rest of Europe, as you've seemed to suggest? If the German people decide something is right, is it up to the rest of Europe to help pay the bill?

Again, much less imposing, more pointing out what I perceive as hypocrisy. Poland likes to whine that the UK didn't help it in the big wars or that Germany wants to have a pipeline around it so that Russia can screw Poland over more easily etc. but now it tells Syrians to go starve at the fence because Poland does not want to help them. Well, if you prefer a world where each nation minds its own business and only looks for its own benefit, don't whine about other nations doing it, too. And in that sense, why do you cry about Germany wanting to dominate Europe? Maybe it is our best interest and that's all that should matter to me? Why should I care the least bit about your concerns then? I'll just hope you'll be ruled by us soon for my own interests/benefit. Or do you believe all nation states can look for their own best interests without any collisions or harming the interests of other nations? :dizzy2:

Everything will be ok if we pray more. Face it Husar Merkel is no longer sane.

I'm not entirely sure where this insanity stuff is from, maybe your bar for declaring people insane is incredibly low. You're free to disagree with her though.

Where's this quote from?

The Guardian article in post #1786.

Fragony

02-13-2016, 19:44

Husar

02-13-2016, 20:59

hussie, she is rumoured to be very off lately, also within her own party. She supposedly accepts no critism at all anymore from even her inner circles. Her eyes do look empty and she looks confused and bitter.

Says who?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/angela-merkel-und-die-krise-die-einsame-stoische-kanzlerin-1.2862286

This article from.....eh.....today(!) says everyone around her claims she is behaving as always and that she has a whole lot of work to do.
The only thing is that she apparently doesn't sleep well at times because she is thinking about the refugee crisis.
Either way, makes me wonder why we have a parliament if she decides everything anyway.

Fragony

02-13-2016, 21:11

Why do tney have to insist that she is behaving as always?

Husar

02-13-2016, 22:49

Why do tney have to insist that she is behaving as always?

It says the reporter asked them how she was doing with all that work she has on her plate.
I suppose they answered the question like, you know, many people do when asked a question.

Fragony

02-13-2016, 23:17

It says the reporter asked them how she was doing with all that work she has on her plate.
I suppose they answered the question like, you know, many people do when asked a question.

And why would he ask the question if people weren't wondering if she's still 'the same'. I fully believe she don't sleep very well, probably muttering 'aber... wir...schaffen...das...' with an icebag on her forehead. The childless mutti has losst most if not all crediblty in the schengen-zone

Sarmatian

02-13-2016, 23:20

She isn't sending muslims back home. Something must be wrong with her, because no sane person would do that.

Fragony

02-14-2016, 04:54

You forgot calling me a bigot

Gilrandir

02-14-2016, 07:21

Yes, the romans, Greeks and a few others had different ideas long before that, but especially the Romans, which PVC likes so much, were apparently not afraid to have all kinds of different people within their borders as long as they followed certain laws, no?

Perhaps it was one of the reasons that brought Roman empire down?

Husar

02-14-2016, 11:05

Perhaps it was one of the reasons that brought Roman empire down?

Perhaps it wasn't?

Fragony

02-14-2016, 12:29

Perhaps it wasn't?

It wasn't, Roman empire never falled, 'barbarian invasion' is much more complicated than that. But that has little to do with the childless mutti's little children who she empty-eyed invited with a dumb smile on her face. Now that she can't schaff that after all she wants to other member-states to take it of her plumb shoulders. They aren't going to, they can see her detoriating mental-health. Childless women do strange things when they get older. Merkel reminds me the (excellent) movie Downfall, or Untergang in German. Completly irrational. Yoda voice: get rid of her, gently escort her to a mental-institution, you must

Gilrandir

02-14-2016, 13:10

It wasn't, Roman empire never falled, 'barbarian invasion' is much more complicated than that.
That's what I meant. Internal weakness coupled with attacks from outside. But internal weakness was caused by different factors, heterogeneous populace was one of them.

Fragony

02-14-2016, 16:14

That's what I meant. Internal weakness coupled with attacks from outside. But internal weakness was caused by different factors, heterogeneous populace was one of them.

Parallels are always risky, you end up urguing with yourself. Current situation is new, never so much, never so fast. You make yourself a really easy target if you draw comparisons withthe Roman Empire, very tempting to do but a first year student is going to destroy any argument

Papewaio

02-15-2016, 03:40

So can we take bets now on what is going to last longer?

Northern EU vs Southern EU and which one accepts whose authority?

Fragony

02-15-2016, 05:19

Make that west and east

Gilrandir

02-15-2016, 10:17

Parallels are always risky, you end up urguing with yourself. Current situation is new, never so much, never so fast. You make yourself a really easy target if you draw comparisons withthe Roman Empire, very tempting to do but a first year student is going to destroy any argument

If you refer to my post you will see that it was Husar who drew upon a parallel. I was arguing about Roman Empire and the causes of its downfall, NOT about today's Gemany or Europe.

Fragony

02-15-2016, 10:33

If you refer to my post you will see that it was Husar who drew upon a parallel. I was arguing about Roman Empire and the causes of its downfall, NOT about today's Gemany or Europe.

I know

Husar

02-15-2016, 12:57

If you refer to my post you will see that it was Husar who drew upon a parallel. I was arguing about Roman Empire and the causes of its downfall, NOT about today's Gemany or Europe.

If you look closer at my post you will see that I only brought it up because Phillippus Vallinderus Callicula or by whatever name he goes now brought it up before. Therefore, I am innocent, which proves me right! :rolleyes:

Husar

02-17-2016, 18:23

http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/erschreckende-polizeistatistik-3863-verfahren-in-nrw-so-gross-ist-das-problem-mit-nafris-wirklich_id_5292808.html

There is a new police report that finally reveals how many problems there actually are with males of north african descent. The report states that 33.6% of the morroccans in North-Rhine-Westphalia have become criminal and 38.6% of the Algerians. So you can say that it's unfair to blame the crime mostly on north africans, but it certainly seems to fit the statistics as refugees and the likes are apparently not nearly as strongly represented.

The opposition says they've always been saying that they need to be kicked out faster but their home countries refuse to fill out the papers to take them back as they do not want them back. So is the government now trying to blame all refugee criminality on north africans? Is Merkel racist after all? The report is from the government of North-Rhine-Westphalia though, we are ruled here by the social democrats who so far didn't want such statistics to come to light apparently. What seems pretty obvious though is that the law enforcement processes are slow and full of loopholes.

Fragony

02-17-2016, 19:58

Poor north-africans, disposable apparently when there are people who you should pity even more for that warm feeling. It isn't true, most were Syrian, Iraqi's and Afghans.

Husar

02-17-2016, 20:23

Poor north-africans, disposable apparently when there are people who you should pity even more for that warm feeling. It isn't true, most were Syrian, Iraqi's and Afghans.

I'm sorry, of course you are right.

Fragony

02-18-2016, 17:53

I'm sorry, of course you are right.

I am, and the cildless Mutti Merkel is going to be bonjoured, you'll see.

Snowhobbit

02-19-2016, 14:48

Why is this happening? Multiple reasons, ranging from the fact that life is pretty shitty in certain parts of the world (especially when compared with life, and in particular the image of life in Europe), to the fact that there is a war going on in Syria, that Libya is lawless and that growing up in a refugee camp is not appealing. These are what I'd call the push factors. Then add in dictatorships around the horn of Africa which is a legitimate thing to flee from.
Then we have the pull factors, from which we can take our pick of Merkel's "everyone is welcome" and "wir schaffen das" to signal politics from Swedish politicians stating "there is no limit, we will take everyone" and automatic permanent residency (and thus citizenship in 4 years) and a very generous welfare system. The difference in quality of life between living on welfare in a country like Sweden to trying to make a life in some poor sub-Saharan country or a refugee camp is astonishing.

With the turnabout that our government has made, and that the German one is making, this is all showing how short-sighted and frankly callous and disgusting our political leadership is. That is not to say that all of those who have come here will be staying. Some will go home once the war is over, and a significant amount will have to be repatriated once they are refused the right to live in the countries they applied for asylum in. It will take a lot of work and to some extent measures that will be cried over by the usual suspects, but all the same it will be done. It is the only way to stop the influx, something our politicians are slowly waking up to.

Fragony

02-19-2016, 15:02

Simply because a mentally deranged German chancellor who is known to have a messias-complex invited them. Now she doesn't know what to do with them and wants other nations to get the burden of her plumb shoulders. Not going to happen it's Germany's problem. All nations are closing their borders and the childless mutti is muttering 'wir schaffen das' with an icebag on her forehead

Sarmatian

02-19-2016, 15:04

Let's cut the bull and get down to brass tacks. I'm even willing to set aside the fact that I was right months ago

About what exactly?

Fragony

02-19-2016, 15:06

About what exactly?

That it's insane perhaps? Most aren't even refugees. A lot of rapefugees though, as anyone living near a 'refugee-camp' can tell you.

Pannonian

02-19-2016, 15:19

Since the UK (and Ireland) aren't part of Schengen, we still have our border controls, and we are under no obligation to accept anyone unless we choose to. I darn well hope we don't choose to. Anyone wishing to enter the UK can come via the usual channels, or else face getting chucked back or a reasonable approximation thereof.

Kralizec

02-19-2016, 15:49

No country has an obligation to take in migrants in general.

True refugees make up a minority of the people we're talking about. It's been that way in the past, and it's true now even though the numbers are much bigger. I read a good article a few months ago behind the logistics and economics of human trafficking. I forgot most of the details, but it listed several reasons why an increase in legitimate refugees (i.e. Syrians and Eritreans) also leads to an increase of people who migrate for purely economic reasons. People who have understandable reasons for trying (if you lived in a third world country, wouldn't you like to move to Germany or the UK?) but who have no reasonable claim for asylum.

Multiple ideas have been put forward in which Turkey would put more effort in preventing human trafficking across the sea and, in return, European countries would take in a fixed number of genuine refugees every year, until the Syrian conflict has ended. Turkey would also receive some financial compensation for this scheme. This would be great if it could be made to work but...it's Turkey we're talking about.

As for frau Merkel: I also think that the particular speech she's been criticized so much for was ill-conceived, but mostly because of the predictable political backlash. I don't buy the assertion that one speech will suddenly cause millions of people to pack their bags. There was a huge spike of migrants shortly afterwards, but most of those people would have been on the move for weeks before that. On the other hand, David Cameron isn't known for lofty welcome speeches but people are still trying to cross the canal tunnel in droves. What does that tell you?

Husar

02-19-2016, 16:20

Because it is our responsibility as christian nations:

Simply put, our responsibility lies in working for the Lord, whether it is in “looking after orphans or widows in distress” (James 1:27), giving to the hungry, the naked, visiting those in prison (see Matthew 25:35-36), serving in our workplace (see Colossians 3:22), or doing whatever we do (Colossians 3:23). And our motivation is that we have God’s own promise that our work “is not in vain” in the Lord “since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:24).

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-responsibility.html

Atheists are free to disagree I guess.

Greyblades

02-19-2016, 16:30

Tbe answer is simple; Weed out the migrants from the refugees and send the migrants home, at gunpoint if need be. The unattached ablebodied refugees we lump on the surrounding muslim countries, the rest we stick in local refugee camps until Assad wins and we can send them home.

The problem is that a lot of the european governments are filled with people who are either too invested in or deluded about the current situation to do what needs to be done.

InsaneApache

02-19-2016, 16:36

Pannonian

02-19-2016, 16:46

Because it is our responsibility as christian nations:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-responsibility.html

Atheists are free to disagree I guess.

Was this in the manifesto of the party that won the last General Election?

Sarmatian

02-19-2016, 16:54

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-19-2016, 16:54

Because it is our responsibility as christian nations:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-responsibility.html

Atheists are free to disagree I guess.

As an atheist I would not disagree.

Fragony

02-19-2016, 17:19

17563

Mother Europe is in danger. Unwashed brown barbarians are coming...

I love you guys. About 90% of you fall under entitled brats with no clue about life. And 2/3 of those 90% are bigots and chauvinists.

Is this a bigot or just an ordinary woman who says how things are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5RifrDfElo

Let's not even start about the predatory behaviour in Germany and Sweden. Must say that the problems are pretty small here in the Netherlands

Greyblades

02-19-2016, 17:22

I love you guys. About 90% of you fall under entitled brats with no clue about life.
Says the one advocating for entitlements for brats with no clue about european life.

Kralizec

02-19-2016, 17:24

17563

Mother Europe is in danger. Unwashed brown barbarians are coming...

I love you guys. About 90% of you fall under entitled brats with no clue about life. And 2/3 of those 90% are bigots and chauvinists.

You picked a Polish magazine cover to make your point. Need I say more? Poland, as well as Hungary, is run by politicians that make the Marseille branch of the Front National look like bleeding heart liberals.

Maybe the public opinion in Serbia is more positive about foreigners? So far Serbia's role seems to be limited to providing cab and bus transport for those en route to Germany, anyway.

Brenus

02-19-2016, 18:59

"Atheists are free to disagree I guess." Only about the bases of your sentence. I don't need a big man on a cloud to be human.
I shall pass on the French comment that shows how much clues our USA friend has in understanding France, so to say Europe. As much as I know, all countries have de facto laws on clothing, under various reasons i.e. decency, safety, and all the catalogue.

So is it Europe responsibility? Some could say that with economical treaties imposed to others countries Europe is creating the economical refugees, with the civilisation and capitalistic mode based on consumption Europe creates the conditions of climate changes which will put populations on move, due to desertification, droughts, raising of seas levels etc... How many flooding in Bangladesh before the inhabitants decide that too much is too much.
We do as well attack a lot of others countries, deciding for them how to behave, then creating all the conditions for warlords to come and to put populations in the move.

So, no, it is not Europe responsibility to welcome refugees. It is Europe responsibility to stop its participation in creating refugees.

Snowhobbit

02-19-2016, 20:18

17563

Mother Europe is in danger. Unwashed brown barbarians are coming...

I love you guys. About 90% of you fall under entitled brats with no clue about life. And 2/3 of those 90% are bigots and chauvinists.

Dang it, I was unaware that we were all collectively the editor of that magazine. Did you bother to read the posts at all?

Sarmatian

02-19-2016, 21:16

Oh, well now I'm convinced.

This is all the left has, shame tactics.

It wasn't supposed to convince you.

And what were you right about?

Maybe the public opinion in Serbia is more positive about foreigners? So far Serbia's role seems to be limited to providing cab and bus transport for those en route to Germany, anyway.

Nah. We tend to butcher those guys with rusty spoons anyway. Did we ever get a thanks for it? No.

Actually, there are still a few guys right there in Netherlands who are very good at it. If sending the refugees back is too big a problem, just let those guys loose. They'll take care of everything.

Pannonian

02-19-2016, 22:09

Kralizec

02-19-2016, 23:03

….

I’ll clarify that I think legitimate refugees do deserve shelter. The problem isn't really the number of Syrians or Eritreans coming here. The real problem lies with the people who have no justifiable reason for trying to claim asylum, but try to cheat the system.

At the same time, the fact that a person has fled his home country because of war or repression shouldn’t give him an unqualified right to settle wherever he pleases. Ideally Europe and Turkey would come to an understanding about:
- improving the conditions of refugee camps in Turkey
- cutting off the smuggling routes to Europe
- resettlement of a fixed number of confirmed refugees from Turkey, and maybe from Jordan
- distributing these refugees fairly across Europe (and that includes less wealthy countries like Poland, which would not be the first choice of most refugees)

wooly_mammoth

02-20-2016, 09:12

^To the above I would add an obligation for the refugees to integrate in the country in which they are settled, i.e. respect the local laws and customs, learn the local language, get a job or stick to whatever the integration services find for them, send their children to school. People who fail the above points should get a one-way ticket back to whatever miserable place they ran from and be banned from ever entering the E.U. again.

Gilrandir

02-20-2016, 17:06

Since the UK (and Ireland) aren't part of Schengen, we still have our border controls.
Thank the Channel for it, not your border control.

Atheists are free to disagree I guess.

Americans won't, because in God they trust.

….
Ideally Europe and Turkey would come to an understanding about:
- improving the conditions of refugee camps in Turkey
- cutting off the smuggling routes to Europe
- resettlement of a fixed number of confirmed refugees from Turkey, and maybe from Jordan

This. And I would add one more:
- redirecting the immigration torrents to the closer countries (both geographically and culturally/confessionally).

Gilrandir

02-20-2016, 17:09

Simply because a mentally deranged German chancellor who is known to have a messias-complex invited them.
I guess it is time to go for one more meme:
It is February the 20th and Merkel is still a mentally deranged childless mutti with a messiah complex.

Fragony

02-20-2016, 17:13

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-20-2016, 18:50

Fragony

02-20-2016, 18:56

Of course? Do you have any evidence for this statement, or is it just...a baseless belief?

Of course I don't it's Interpol who says it not me http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/12165093/Up-to-5000-Isil-trained-jihadists-could-be-at-large-in-Europe.html

Sarmatian

02-20-2016, 21:03

Nice to hear, Interpol estimates 3000 to 5000 jihadists, and that are just the returnees who got training there. Why they are allowed to come back is beyond me but alas. There are of course many more among the refugees.

No, Interpol estimates that there "could be up to 5000" of them in Europe.

While a few lines down there's this info

There is no concrete evidence terrorists are systematically using of the flow of refugees to infiltrate Europe

Pannonian

02-20-2016, 21:38

Sarmatian

02-20-2016, 22:28

Hang on. Doesn't this infringe the human rights of these refugees/migrants to travel to wherever they wish?

It doesn't have to if it is an agreement. You wanna stay, you've gotta accept those terms for a defined period of time.

We all have guaranteed freedom of movement, but that doesn't forbid our employers to keep us at our workplace for 8 hours a day.

Husar

02-20-2016, 23:39

Actually it's Europol, not Interpol, just saying.

Fragony

02-21-2016, 00:58

No, Interpol estimates that there "could be up to 5000" of them in Europe.

While a few lines down there's this info

Left it open-ended enough

Gilrandir

02-21-2016, 07:36

While a few lines down there's this info
There is no concrete evidence terrorists are systematically using of the flow of refugees to infiltrate Europe

They come to Europe by the backdoor - through the German parliament:
http://www.dw.com/en/ex-terrorist-becomes-an-issue-in-german-state-poll/a-2510817

wooly_mammoth

02-21-2016, 07:51

Hang on. Doesn't this infringe the human rights of these refugees/migrants to travel to wherever they wish?

As far as I know every country in the world has the right to deny entrance to foreigners deemed undesirable for reasons like terrorist activities. If you want to travel to a country that requires a visa and they have a half-decent secret service, if they discover you were taking courses on how to detonate yourself in crowded places back in your youth, that's constitutes a pretty strong reason to deny your request.

Something like that should clearly be extended to asylum-seekers. The country where you are seeking refuge is making you a favor and giving you a chance at a better life, helping you integrate in a better society than the one you left behind on the expense of the people living there. If you cannot respect that and the responsibilities it implies and you go around harassing the locals, molesting women and other such horrible things, then there's no reason in the world why you shouldn't be kicked out and banned from ever entering again in that country. If the country happens to be in the EU, where there's a broad range of customs and laws shared among the member states, there's no reason not to make the interdiction EU-wide. No need to exhibit your primitive limitations in front of others yet again, with the same result.

Fragony

02-21-2016, 08:49

They come to Europe by the backdoor - through the German parliament:
http://www.dw.com/en/ex-terrorist-becomes-an-issue-in-german-state-poll/a-2510817

Red Army Fraction, caused a lot of trouble in Germany. Some are still active in the antifacist(lol) movements. Different thing though. But it's incredibly naive to think IS wouldn't cease the oppertunity of letting jihadi's travel among the migrants. A fake identity can easily be bought in Turkey, costs a few thousands to get a fake ID that is a perfect copy of a real one. Refugees don't have the money for that but IS does. The Turkish maffa and IS don't make a secret out of it that it works that way.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-21-2016, 13:44

Red Army Fraction, caused a lot of trouble in Germany. Some are still active in the antifacist(lol) movements. Different thing though. But it's incredibly naive to think IS wouldn't cease the oppertunity of letting jihadi's travel among the migrants. A fake identity can easily be bought in Turkey, costs a few thousands to get a fake ID that is a perfect copy of a real one. Refugees don't have the money for that but IS does. The Turkish maffa and IS don't make a secret out of it that it works that way.

...which is all just conjecture. Let's just ignore that the terrorists in Paris, for example, were EU citizens - ie there is no evidence AT ALL that terrorists are sneaking in among the refugees.

I do wonder what purpose EUROPOL thought there was in issuing a statement regarding how many numbers of terrorists MIGHT be entering Europe...without any evidence at all....doesn't sound like particularly competent police work. In fact it sounds a lot like simple 'racial profiling'...

Fragony

02-21-2016, 14:17

...which is all just conjecture. Let's just ignore that the terrorists in Paris, for example, were EU citizens - ie there is no evidence AT ALL that terrorists are sneaking in among the refugees.

I do wonder what purpose EUROPOL thought there was in issuing a statement regarding how many numbers of terrorists MIGHT be entering Europe...without any evidence at all....doesn't sound like particularly competent police work. In fact it sounds a lot like simple 'racial profiling'...

True, there is no there evidence at all. (sidenote, believe me it's true, you will just have to take my word for it, I got no links, no sources, but I do know people who live there.)

Snowhobbit

02-21-2016, 15:47

...which is all just conjecture. Let's just ignore that the terrorists in Paris, for example, were EU citizens - ie there is no evidence AT ALL that terrorists are sneaking in among the refugees.

I do wonder what purpose EUROPOL thought there was in issuing a statement regarding how many numbers of terrorists MIGHT be entering Europe...without any evidence at all....doesn't sound like particularly competent police work. In fact it sounds a lot like simple 'racial profiling'...

While it is true that they were mostly (or all?) citizens of European countries, they also gained access and entry to Europe by hiding amongst the stream of refugees. Or should we ignore the passport that was registered as entering Greece as a refugee last summer being connected to the perps?

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-21-2016, 17:02

While it is true that they were mostly (or all?) citizens of European countries, they also gained access and entry to Europe by hiding amongst the stream of refugees. Or should we ignore the passport that was registered as entering Greece as a refugee last summer being connected to the perps?

You mean that passport that had nothing to do with the terrorists? That one? The thing is, French intelligence have stated they were watching this cell and knew they had returned to Europe from Syria (so...not by sneaking in with refugees...otherwise EUROPOL would have evidence, wouldn't they.)...and then 'lost' them.

You know...it's so easy to get people to believe something...just write it as a headline story. Doesn't matter if the story is later shown to have no truth to it....it'll always be the thing that people remember. Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well....

wooly_mammoth

02-21-2016, 19:40

Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants.

Fragony

02-21-2016, 20:44

Grab not their breasts and church your evil faith, but thank the builder for the trials that shape thee..

disclaimer, only a few will get this

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-21-2016, 21:25

Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants.

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.

Fragony

02-21-2016, 21:34

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.

Wny need evidence. One must assume that someone acts reationaly. Methods might seem irrational, at first, but the purpose isn't. Our enemies are not dumb.

Sarmatian

02-21-2016, 23:01

Wny need evidence.

Exactly!

Fragony

02-22-2016, 02:05

It are the migrants themselves who claim that there are jihadi's comming along. Anyone sane would think, yes of course

Husar

02-22-2016, 02:21

It are the migrants themselves who claim that there are jihadi's comming along. Anyone sane would think, yes of course

Are they also asking for big fences and to be kept outside? I mean, what exactly is the point?

I mean most people use "there are jihadists among them" as an argument to keep all of them outside, should we only keep the ones who warn us of jihadis? Should we go "Thank you, now get out!"? I'm not entirely clear on the logic here. If we didn't accept any, we would have never known there are jihadis among them, now that we have a million, they told us that they brought some jihadis along? Did jihadis not manage to come to Europe before 2015?

Fragony

02-22-2016, 04:15

Snowhobbit

02-22-2016, 08:10

You mean that passport that had nothing to do with the terrorists? That one? The thing is, French intelligence have stated they were watching this cell and knew they had returned to Europe from Syria (so...not by sneaking in with refugees...otherwise EUROPOL would have evidence, wouldn't they.)...and then 'lost' them.

You know...it's so easy to get people to believe something...just write it as a headline story. Doesn't matter if the story is later shown to have no truth to it....it'll always be the thing that people remember. Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well....

Yes, that passport found in connection to the group which entered Greece last summer, that passport. It is funny that you think the French intelligence was watching the cell, when the head of the cell was presumed to be in Syria until he was found in Paris in the shoot-out a couple of days after the first attack. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument, it is for a good cause after all.

Snowhobbit

02-22-2016, 08:13

Are they also asking for big fences and to be kept outside? I mean, what exactly is the point?

I mean most people use "there are jihadists among them" as an argument to keep all of them outside, should we only keep the ones who warn us of jihadis? Should we go "Thank you, now get out!"? I'm not entirely clear on the logic here. If we didn't accept any, we would have never known there are jihadis among them, now that we have a million, they told us that they brought some jihadis along? Did jihadis not manage to come to Europe before 2015?

From my perspective the bigger issue is that we need to be better at rooting them out and getting them out of the country/life-time in jail. It is of great concern to me that people who have fled violence and terror will get to be room-mates with the people that they fled from. Given the massive degree of violence within our refugee shelters, it is clearly an issue. But to be clear, no the borders should not be closed in order to "keep the terrorists out". We have a bigger problem with home-grown terrorists than those coming with the influx I'm sure. We've certainly "exported" enough of them.

Snowhobbit

02-22-2016, 08:14

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.
While it is nice of you to try to twist the argument, do note that he used the word "immigrant" and not refugee. Now of course I am sure you will explain how all of those North African men are native Germans :).

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-22-2016, 09:42

Yes, that passport found in connection to the group which entered Greece last summer, that passport. It is funny that you think the French intelligence was watching the cell, when the head of the cell was presumed to be in Syria until he was found in Paris in the shoot-out a couple of days after the first attack. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument, it is for a good cause after all.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/french-and-belgian-intelligence-knew-paris-attackers-had-jihadi-backgrounds

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/17/were-paris-attacks-a-french-intelligence-failure.html

Al EU residents, all known. Tell me, given that they have legitimate EU passports....why would any of them be trying to use a false passport? And why would they take it with them on a terror attack, and leave it in a, presumably, loose pocket so that it could fall out?

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-22-2016, 09:45

While it is nice of you to try to twist the argument, do note that he used the word "immigrant" and not refugee. Now of course I am sure you will explain how all of those North African men are native Germans :).

But it is you who twisted the argument then, isn't it? You didn't correct the misapprehension by making clear that there is a distinction between immigrants and regugees, you simply transplanted the word immigrant for refugee. Given the context of the discussion that is, frankly, disingenuous.

Snowhobbit

02-22-2016, 09:51

But it is you who twisted the argument then, isn't it? You didn't correct the misapprehension by making clear that there is a distinction between immigrants and regugees, you simply transplanted the word immigrant for refugee. Given the context of the discussion that is, frankly, disingenuous.

No, you are the person who transplanted one word meaning one thing with another. I agree that is a very disingenuous way of arguing, but hey that is how you argue so I'm not sure why you are telling me. Do you not read what people post when you respond to them?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/french-and-belgian-intelligence-knew-paris-attackers-had-jihadi-backgrounds

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/17/were-paris-attacks-a-french-intelligence-failure.html

Al EU residents, all known. Tell me, given that they have legitimate EU passports....why would any of them be trying to use a false passport? And why would they take it with them on a terror attack, and leave it in a, presumably, loose pocket so that it could fall out?

Yes, what reason could they have for wanting to enter the country without the intelligence services knowing that they have? Maybe they planned to attack certain public places and didn't want to get stopped?

Obviously there was an intelligence failure that lead to the successful attack, same as how the shoot-out a few days later was in contrast successful. Do note btw that your articles do not claim what you say about the French intelligence forces knowing that he had come back to France. Of course they knew that these people were radicals, there are thousands of them on the list of radicals. But because I put a name on a list does not mean I know the whereabouts of that person. If they had returned using their own passports, then it would have been known and they would have been monitored.

wooly_mammoth

02-22-2016, 11:55

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.

Well, there was that footage with a german woman, her eyes welling with tears as she was passed around and fondled all over by a large group of what I will politely call subhumans of non-european descent, but that too must be a part of the occult ruse aimed at concealing the real enemy of man, right?

Fragony

02-22-2016, 12:12

Don't bother she is lost by now, nobody wants to know what happened to her. You do, I do, but we are kinda alone. Just like her.

Husar

02-22-2016, 12:53

Apart from the jihadi's and rapefugees, gving false hope is just cruel. Nothing that was promised by the most cynical industry in the universe and suroundings is true, and as a well-meaning person I despise those who facilitate it. Merkel made herself the mutti of human-trafficking. Security-risks aside, she's got blood on her hands.

Now I'm even more confused. It's not cruel to human-traffic jihadis and rapefugees? And what was promised by human traffickers?

People who call me a bigot, you know who are, are you actually sheltering anyone, because I actually do that.

You like to mention that, don't you? Don't forget to mention that you can also afford to throw away 20k€ worth of clothes, if some did that they'd not nearly get there before they'd have to run around naked. It's good that you can afford it and do it, but don't be an ass about it like it makes you holier than thou.

HopAlongBunny

02-22-2016, 13:12

This is giving me flashbacks of: "None is too many"

Sarmatian

02-22-2016, 14:29

Don't bother she is lost by now, nobody wants to know what happened to her. You do, I do, but we are kinda alone. Just like her.

Frags, do you really don't understand the difference between a criminal and a rather large group of people the criminal belongs too, or are you playing dumb?

Two days ago an Uber driver shot 6 people in Kalamazoo. Which group do we hold responsible? Uber drivers, Americans, Christians or white males?

Husar

02-22-2016, 14:46

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Angela Merkel doesn't know what she's doing. She knows exactly what she's doing.

Fragony

02-22-2016, 14:58

Now I'm even more confused. It's not cruel to human-traffic jihadis and rapefugees? And what was promised by human traffickers?

You like to mention that, don't you? Don't forget to mention that you can also afford to throw away 20k€ worth of clothes, if some did that they'd not nearly get there before they'd have to run around naked. It's good that you can afford it and do it, but don't be an ass about it like it makes you holier than thou.

20.000 lol, no Hussie a zero too many. My mom wanted to take these clothes to the laundry and accidently threw them away with the trash from my sister's house. Lots of trash she's a bit of a swine. But alas I'll help when I can, I can therefore I am. Reality is that in reality I am a much nicer person than those who say I'm not and make stupid insinuations. I shouldn't have told that I actually give people a place to stay because now it looks like I am making a point out of it

Snowhobbit

02-22-2016, 15:20

And what was promised by human traffickers?

I'm not sure what was promised in the case of Germany, but in the case of Sweden what was promised was good housing, easy access to the job market, a safe place in which you'd be able to quickly reunite with your family. This was to some extent also promised by our politicians "there are no limits to how many we can take" etc.

Now what we have is a migration system that is breaking down, widespread abuse of refugees and refugee children, year long waits to get your permits so that you can start to integrate in society, currently looking at a minimum of about 3-4 years to bring your family here, more once the changes to make that harder take effect. There is no good housing supplied to them at all, the government is repeatedly failing to uphold the things required of it, both on a national and local level. The whole thing is a mess and a massive expenditure. It will take strong measure to resolve this, and in the meanwhile one of the two government parties is saying that the moment we are not drowning they will once more open the floodgates.

Sarmatian

02-22-2016, 15:47

I shouldn't have told that I actually give people a place to stay because now it looks like I am making a point out of it

You can help one person a still be a bigot. It's a case "I have black friends, but..."

Fragony

02-22-2016, 16:06

You can help one person a still be a bigot. It's a case "I have black friends, but..."

That has become a cliché of it's own. I know myself way too well to not care if someone calls me a bigot. What used to offend me I only find pathetic now; the morally rightious who's spell they cast is losing power every time they cast it

BIGOTUS!

wut, yeah right kthxbye

Husar

02-22-2016, 16:15

20.000 lol, no Hussie a zero too many.

Yes, my mistake.
The question is why you always want closed borders, apparently for pretty much everyone, and yet say you want to help. Looking at it from the outside it makes little sense. On the other side I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who sends invitations to jihadists, yet there seem to be plenty of accusations like that thrown around.

The argument that not only doctors and lawyers come is just as silly as the one that only doctors and lawyers come because if only doctors and lawyers are worth saving, that's class warfare!

Fragony

02-22-2016, 16:20

I really can't add anything to what Krazelic already said

Gilrandir

02-22-2016, 16:55

Reality is that in reality I am a much nicer person than those who say I'm not and make stupid insinuations. I shouldn't have told that I actually give people a place to stay because now it looks like I am making a point out of it

The question is why you always want closed borders, apparently for pretty much everyone, and yet say you want to help. Looking at it from the outside it makes little sense.

It does make sense:
http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/resources/social/AS_AQB_social_attitudes_lapiere.pdf

Sarmatian

02-22-2016, 18:38

That has become a cliché of it's own. I know myself way too well to not care if someone calls me a bigot. What used to offend me I only find pathetic now; the morally rightious who's spell they cast is losing power every time they cast it

BIGOTUS!

wut, yeah right kthxbye

Then why try to prove it constantly?

Not at related to the discussion, but Harry Potter references are incredibly lame.

Fragony

02-22-2016, 20:22

Then why try to prove it constantly?

Because there is constantly unfair insinuation. You are a good example of that yourself. You aren't that bad but it's tiring to constantly having to explain yourself. Times are changing gladly, the monopoly on morality is no longer a given for the leftist church. The leftist-church isn't used to actually defending their views and resort to all they know and all that worked, redicule and insinuations, but reality is catching up fast. Harry Potter references aren't lame as the politically correct live in a world that doesn't exist no matter how much they want to.

Sarmatian

02-22-2016, 21:33

Because there is constantly unfair insinuation. You are a good example of that yourself. You aren't that bad but it's tiring to constantly having to explain yourself. Times are changing gladly, the monopoly on morality is no longer a given for the leftist church. The leftist-church isn't used to actually defending their views and resort to all they know and all that worked, redicule and insinuations, but reality is catching up fast. Harry Potter references aren't lame as the politically correct live in a world that doesn't exist no matter how much they want to.

This isn't about political correctness. This is about people suffering. I know first hand how it feels when you are discriminated against, and that was absolutely minute compared to what these people are experiencing every single day.

Yes, I would like to at least try to help. To at least try to identify the sincere ones before everyone is sent back. To do utmost to minimize the risks. Can we eliminate the risks? No, not completely, but I'm willing to live with that. I'm taking risks every time I step out the door and statistics tells me there's much greater chance that I will die in a car crash than from a terrorist attack.

Do you truly feel that is so ludicrous? And there simple can't be talks about it because you've been on autopilot for the last year with wir schaffen das, rapefugees, hyenas, insane childless mutti and whatever other stormfront like catch phrases you've been using.
Not just here, but everywhere. Youtube and article comments are filled with words like rats, subhumans, cattle... Yes, I know haters tend to be more active, there's always a silent majority but regardless...

People are refusing to acknowledge that those people coming into Europe are not all the same. It is not a single monolithic block. We instinctively understand that when it comes to our group - how much mental work is needed to understand it is the same for refugees?

Fragony

02-22-2016, 21:47

If you are going to associate me with stormfront we have nothing to say to eachother, don't bother reaching out

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-22-2016, 22:08

No, you are the person who transplanted one word meaning one thing with another. I agree that is a very disingenuous way of arguing, but hey that is how you argue so I'm not sure why you are telling me. Do you not read what people post when you respond to them?

Ok....let us have a quick resumé of this part of the discussion. I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously. Not for the first or last time within the discussion (see the later "It are the migrants themselves who claim that there are jihadi's comming along." - referring to refugees)

So your claim that the word is being used distinctly from the term 'refugees' is at best limpid inattention...of course one need only look back over the discussion to check the voracity of one's position.

Of course...there are certain sections of societies who are opposed to immigration more generally...and for whom the refugees are simply another burden upon more...righteous? nations.....and tying them to terrorism is an easy 'out'.....'it's not that I've got anything against these people but.....they might be dangerous'

Yes, what reason could they have for wanting to enter the country without the intelligence services knowing that they have? Maybe they planned to attack certain public places and didn't want to get stopped?

Obviously there was an intelligence failure that lead to the successful attack, same as how the shoot-out a few days later was in contrast successful. Do note btw that your articles do not claim what you say about the French intelligence forces knowing that he had come back to France. Of course they knew that these people were radicals, there are thousands of them on the list of radicals. But because I put a name on a list does not mean I know the whereabouts of that person. If they had returned using their own passports, then it would have been known and they would have been monitored.

Except....you'll note that Europol accept that they have no evidence that Jihadists are travelling with refugees (look here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html - there are even questions raised as to whether the passport was planted in order to sow discontent and distrust (so that all of this fear-mongering is EXACTLY WHAT the terrorists want....so hats off to you all for your impressive victory over terrrorism, eh? :rolleyes: ) which suggests that they know how and when these EU passport holders re-entered the EU.....

AE Bravo

02-22-2016, 22:19

Tough to burst the bubble, it's white privilege.

Yes, it's EUs responsibility to some extent. Thank you for assuming responsibility.

Husar

02-22-2016, 22:31

If you are going to associate me with stormfront we have nothing to say to eachother, don't bother reaching out

Maybe you should express your thoughts a bit clearer and not use so many words that you either made up or adopted from Pat Condell or so.

Greyblades

02-22-2016, 22:37

Tough to burst the bubble, it's white privilege.

Yes, it's EUs responsibility to some extent. Thank you for assuming responsibility.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/604/074/cc0.jpg

Sarmatian

02-22-2016, 22:40

If you are going to associate me with stormfront we have nothing to say to eachother, don't bother reaching out

This is a dodge technique. You don't want to answer so you warp my words, get offended and opt out. You're not stormfront. Not even close. There's a long way for you to go to get there, if you so choose. But you've taken the first step. You perceive those of other faith/ethnicity as inferior, culturally and racially below you and a threat to your civilization or your way of life.

Fragony

02-22-2016, 23:04

Maybe you should express your thoughts a bit clearer and not use so many words that you either made up or adopted from Pat Condell or so.

lol these nice guys from stormfront dispise Pat Condel. Not words I made up by the way there, there is an arab word for what happened in your Germany it's called a tararush. There are two circles formed, one to keep in, one to keep out. Egytion women call it the circle of hell. Hyena's? Yeah. A prey is isolated and abused. Hyena's work so as well.

wikidepiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt

Good luck for the gorgius women in Germany with men like you. It's you who was being humiliated, you just let it happen.

Pannonian

02-22-2016, 23:05

Yes, my mistake.
The question is why you always want closed borders, apparently for pretty much everyone, and yet say you want to help. Looking at it from the outside it makes little sense. On the other side I'm not aware of anyone on this forum who sends invitations to jihadists, yet there seem to be plenty of accusations like that thrown around.

The argument that not only doctors and lawyers come is just as silly as the one that only doctors and lawyers come because if only doctors and lawyers are worth saving, that's class warfare!

I value border controls because it's an integral part of national sovereignty. We've not given it up, so anyone who argues that certain values are more important than our control of our borders is arguing that our national sovereignty is unimportant. If you want to open up your own borders, then the German government can do so for yourselves, but don't presume to do the same for the UK.

Husar

02-23-2016, 01:16

lol these nice guys from stormfront dispise Pat Condel. Not words I made up by the way there, there is an arab word for what happened in your Germany it's called a tararush. There are two circles formed, one to keep in, one to keep out. Egytion women call it the circle of hell. Hyena's? Yeah. A prey is isolated and abused. Hyena's work so as well.

Perhaps I wasn't talking about that word? In fact I was aware of it, but I was actually referring more to the weasels and owls and other things you always come up with. You hardly explain anything, let people guess what you mean and then complain if they guess wrong.

Good luck for the gorgius women in Germany with men like you. It's you who was being humiliated, you just let it happen.

Where is that one coming from and what do you want me to do? Hunt brown children or foreign students and women like the Neo-Nazis?

Or am I going to save our women by shouting paroles at scared refugee children perhaps?

Fragony

02-23-2016, 05:28

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-23-2016, 08:01

What I want you to do is at least acknowledge a problem. Everybody knows that most migrants aren't refugees. Everybody knows that life is a nightmare for christians women and gays in the refugee-centres. And everybody knows that native Europeans, apart from a few idiots, aren't the bad guys.

So....are you talking about refugees (escaping wars and bombing campaigns either instigated by or carried out by 'Native Europeans' and their allies) or migrants? The former are the subject of the thread....you appear to want to conflate the two issues, so that refugees become only more migrants, and so we can de-humanise them as you do the other migrants (an homogeneous whole,like a 'pack'or'herd' of wild animals?) as the 'bad guys' being, as they are, non 'native Europeans'... and you wonder why some might consider your position as somewhat equivalent to that of Stormfront? Methinks she doth protest too much....

Fragony

02-23-2016, 08:25

Fine, yeah I absolutely adore nazi's. Let's just forget that intorance of gays jews and women-rights is rampant in what was hauled in.

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 08:29

Fine, yeah I absolutely adore nazi's. Let's just forget that intorance of gays jews and women-rights is rampant in what was hauled in.

Again implying they're not really humans?

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 08:45

Ok....let us have a quick resumé of this part of the discussion. I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously. Not for the first or last time within the discussion (see the later "It are the migrants themselves who claim that there are jihadi's comming along." - referring to refugees)

So your claim that the word is being used distinctly from the term 'refugees' is at best limpid inattention...of course one need only look back over the discussion to check the voracity of one's position.

Of course...there are certain sections of societies who are opposed to immigration more generally...and for whom the refugees are simply another burden upon more...righteous? nations.....and tying them to terrorism is an easy 'out'.....'it's not that I've got anything against these people but.....they might be dangerous'

Except....you'll note that Europol accept that they have no evidence that Jihadists are travelling with refugees (look here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attacks-the-eight-terror-suspects-named-so-far-all-have-eu-passports-a6738821.html - there are even questions raised as to whether the passport was planted in order to sow discontent and distrust (so that all of this fear-mongering is EXACTLY WHAT the terrorists want....so hats off to you all for your impressive victory over terrrorism, eh? :rolleyes: ) which suggests that they know how and when these EU passport holders re-entered the EU.....
Right, you use the word refugees, another person uses the word immigrants. A person who knows how to read would at this point realize that immigrants being a different word from refugees denotes a different meaning. That is why they are different words.
But do please go ahead and paint me as a racist, clearly reading what I write is more work than building strawmen. Most impressive.

"The French prosecutor's office said the fingerprints of the dead man matched a print of a person registered under the same name in Greece in October 2015. " But of course just because a passport with matching fingerprints entered the EU with the stream does not in any way mean that the person entered with that stream. :dizzy2:
The testimonials of refugees living in asylum centers about ISIS fighters is of course all just made up, we know for sure that 100% of all people who have come to Europe illegally are well intentioned people who wouldn't harm a fly.
I have yet to see you explain btw why it is that the "brains" behind the operation was believed to be in Syria when he was found and killed in Paris?

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 08:48

So....are you talking about refugees (escaping wars and bombing campaigns either instigated by or carried out by 'Native Europeans' and their allies) or migrants? The former are the subject of the thread....you appear to want to conflate the two issues, so that refugees become only more migrants, and so we can de-humanise them as you do the other migrants (an homogeneous whole,like a 'pack'or'herd' of wild animals?) as the 'bad guys' being, as they are, non 'native Europeans'... and you wonder why some might consider your position as somewhat equivalent to that of Stormfront? Methinks she doth protest too much....

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Which bombing campaign has been instigated by "Native Europeans" (by which I presume you mean western countries) in Syria against the local population? And when did we start dropping bombs on Eritrea and Ethiopia?

Fragony

02-23-2016, 08:51

Again implying they're not really humans?

Where is the first time I did? And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

AE Bravo

02-23-2016, 09:23

Why don't you all accept that it comes with the territory? You have a bunch of people escaping a carnival of atrocities coming to your country, naturally there are going to be bad apples and it's your job to root them out now that you let them in.

It sort of seems there is some chauvinism in play here, first it was about losing your homogeneity and now it's about women not being protected, which since you're painting an entire people with the same brush shows that you couldn't care less about those women and it's just your pride really politicizing rape if we're cutting the bull and getting down to brass tacks. As much as you accuse the left of shame tactics, there are few other ways to deal with someone who indulges in calling out others on their "savage" culture.

At least that's what I got from the psychology of statements like this:

Good luck for the gorgius women in Germany with men like you. It's you who was being humiliated, you just let it happen

Fragony

02-23-2016, 09:39

A lot who where caught are third generation immigrants, they were born and raised on German soil. I don't expect of them to climb up a mountain to pick an edelweis and perform a schlager

It wasn't me by the way who said shame tactics, that was Strikie. But I fully agree. Hell has no fury like a guttmensch proven wrong, proven wrong again and again and again. hissssss

HopAlongBunny

02-23-2016, 10:47

17620

Husar

02-23-2016, 11:54

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Which bombing campaign has been instigated by "Native Europeans" (by which I presume you mean western countries) in Syria against the local population? And when did we start dropping bombs on Eritrea and Ethiopia?

The Russians, the Americans, the French...
The African countries were only ruined by European colonialism, resource extraction, slavery, willful drawing of borders, installation of corrupt regimes and exploitative contracts, basically leaving a large population behind that has no perspective in life whatsoever.
Not true for Ethiopia of course, but it was in the middle of all this. Why do you mention it anyway? I was not aware it spawned a large number of migrants although it did habe a war with Eritrea, didn't it?

Where is the first time I did? And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

You said "what was hauled in", not "who was hauled in". That implies things, not people, were hauled in. We could go on about the use of "hauled in"...
Again, language, communication, might want to work on it.

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 12:06

The Russians, the Americans, the French...
The African countries were only ruined by European colonialism, resource extraction, slavery, willful drawing of borders, installation of corrupt regimes and exploitative contracts, basically leaving a large population behind that has no perspective in life whatsoever.
Not true for Ethiopia of course, but it was in the middle of all this. Why do you mention it anyway? I was not aware it spawned a large number of migrants although it did habe a war with Eritrea, didn't it?

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2? And the bomb campaign by NATO forces is targeted towards ISIS, not the civilian population. Not sure why you are having a hard time making that distinction. And I don't know what maps you read but you might want to get a new one if you want to put Russia as a western country?

Ethiopia and Eritrea produce a lot of refugees, along with Somalia these are some of the major countries which "produces" (pardon the language) refugees. Break down of law and order, military dictatorship, mismanagement and starvation, political persecution. Take your pick, all of those things are of course horrible and can be a reasonable cause to flee the country. I'm just having a hard time tracing that to any western bombing campaigns. The notion that all of the people who came last year were from Syria is false, they might be the biggest group (maybe?) but they are certainly not a minority. It is a very heterogeneous "group" of people.

Fragony

02-23-2016, 12:10

Seems perfectly clear to me, what was hauled in is islamist ulture. Real refugees leaves their problems behind, they don't bring it with them

There are of course human-rights being violated. The wifi for their iphones is slow, the tv's aren't even hd-ready let alone hd, the three meals a day aren't very tasty, and to make it even worse they don't get free phone-cards and pocket money. War must be heaven. To make it even worse, the showers and toilets are dirty, do they have to keep them clean themselve wtf? They only get cleaned twice a day!

I payed for much less. And it's much more than our elders get, they are lucky if they are looked after at all.

Gilrandir

02-23-2016, 12:38

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2?

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 13:19

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

And how many Libyans fled last year? Or are you saying the bombs were so big that the explosion reached all the way to the horn of Africa? And I'm pretty sure that if you think real hard you can find a more recent bombing of Libya...

Husar

02-23-2016, 13:29

So when we did last drop bombs over Africa? WW2?

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.

And the bomb campaign by NATO forces is targeted towards ISIS, not the civilian population. Not sure why you are having a hard time making that distinction.

Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

And I don't know what maps you read but you might want to get a new one if you want to put Russia as a western country?

"Native-European"
Western is technically a relative term anyway.

Ethiopia and Eritrea produce a lot of refugees, along with Somalia these are some of the major countries which "produces" (pardon the language) refugees. Break down of law and order, military dictatorship, mismanagement and starvation, political persecution. Take your pick, all of those things are of course horrible and can be a reasonable cause to flee the country. I'm just having a hard time tracing that to any western bombing campaigns. The notion that all of the people who came last year were from Syria is false, they might be the biggest group (maybe?) but they are certainly not a minority. It is a very heterogeneous "group" of people.

I'm not sure where you got the ideas that:
a) Everything needs to be traced back to a western bombing campaign.
b) That there is a notion that all the refugees come from Syria.

I've recently had a discussion with Fragony about the troublemakers being largely of north-african descent. I'm also aware that a lot of people from sub-saharan Africa journey to northern Africa to get to Europe and, according to their own accounts, want to do such things as "become rich football stars". I have never said we should allow these people to stay, although I can understand their strife for a better life to a certain extent. What I argue against are mostly comments that say because these people are among the refugees, we shouldn't let any of them in. Or that they're all inherently incompatible and will only disrupt our fairytale lives. Plenty of people sound like they assume that all refugees are criminals or otherwise undesirable "disruptors", which is just as wrong as the opposite assumption that I never intended to make. In fact I have said numerous times that we should keep those deserving of help, who also appreciate our help and throw out everyone who becomes criminal or otherwise refuses the help she or he gets.
Regardless of this, there is however the issue of how and where to send people you want to throw out as several countries do not want to take anyone back. Do we bomb them until they take them back or let them blackmail us and pay? Or do we place people in no-man's-land until they starve to death? :clown:

Seems perfectly clear to me, what was hauled in is islamist ulture.

You (should) know that I kinda like you as a person and often try to interprete your comments somewhat favourably, but even I had no idea that this is what you meant. Keep in mind there are two people involved in communication and just because something makes sense to you, it does not mean others will understand it exactly as you intended. I will admit that this can be a problem for me too (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not) and probably everyone else here, but it also seems obvious that you have a huge problem with this...

Not that long ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

?

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 13:57

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.

Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

"Native-European"
Western is technically a relative term anyway.

I'm not sure where you got the ideas that:
a) Everything needs to be traced back to a western bombing campaign.
b) That there is a notion that all the refugees come from Syria.

I've recently had a discussion with Fragony about the troublemakers being largely of north-african descent. I'm also aware that a lot of people from sub-saharan Africa journey to northern Africa to get to Europe and, according to their own accounts, want to do such things as "become rich football stars". I have never said we should allow these people to stay, although I can understand their strife for a better life to a certain extent. What I argue against are mostly comments that say because these people are among the refugees, we shouldn't let any of them in. Or that they're all inherently incompatible and will only disrupt our fairytale lives. Plenty of people sound like they assume that all refugees are criminals or otherwise undesirable "disruptors", which is just as wrong as the opposite assumption that I never intended to make. In fact I have said numerous times that we should keep those deserving of help, who also appreciate our help and throw out everyone who becomes criminal or otherwise refuses the help she or he gets.
Regardless of this, there is however the issue of how and where to send people you want to throw out as several countries do not want to take anyone back. Do we bomb them until they take them back or let them blackmail us and pay? Or do we place people in no-man's-land until they starve to death? :clown:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

?

And how did those bombs in Libya reach the horn of Africa again?
Yes, when bombs are dropped sometimes (often? depends on where you drop them) you will hit unintentional targets and kill people who are not the target of the operation/campaign. I can assure you that I am not Kadagar, for one I do not share his belief in the genetic impact on intelligence and ability. I'm not sure how reliable the source quoted is, that organisation is omitting the biggest player in bombings in Syria (or well, the two biggest players), but that is really besides the point. It is indisputable that civilians have died due to coalition bombings. My contention was whether this was a target of the campaign or not, which you appear to not have addressed?

I am simply disputing the notion that Europe is responsible for the push factors of why these people flee. If we had been dropping bombs all over Africa over the past decade then that argument would have a point, however it does not.

Certainly people attempting to get a better life for themselves is something which is understandable. These are people just as we are, they are not vermin or barbarians. That does not mean that we must open our arms and borders for them however, something which you agree on? Personally as far as I can assess the situation, the majority of the influx of people are not as a whole incompatible with society and will not disrupt our lives to any great extent. Under international law, countries have an obligation to receive their citizens. The "clever" thing to do for these countries would then be to torture the people who return, which would result in us being unable to send them back. Of course bombing those countries will not solve anything and create more misery. Instead we should freeze foreign aid and start embargoing such countries unless they agree to play by the rules. Such as Afghanistan refusing to accept the "horde" of "children" which have arrived in Sweden recently. Why on earth should we be giving their government a single cent while they refuse to accept their own citizens?

Gilrandir

02-23-2016, 14:34

And how many Libyans fled last year? Or are you saying the bombs were so big that the explosion reached all the way to the horn of Africa? And I'm pretty sure that if you think real hard you can find a more recent bombing of Libya...

You asked the direct question and I came up with an explicit answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

?

Again: the question was about bombing only.

I can assure you that I am not Kadagar,

I agree. Kadagar was not so quick to insult people.

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 14:42

You asked the direct question and I came up with an explicit answer.

Again: the question was about bombing only.

I agree. Kadagar was not so quick to insult people.

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

Yes, I asked a question with the intention of making a point. Once an answer has been received a further question needs to be posed to illustrate that point. My apologies if this was too complex for you, do try to answer the question. And I am reasonably sure that the military intervention included some amount of bombs.

Yes, the only thing separating me from a racist is that I am faster to insult. Good job Gil.

Husar

02-23-2016, 15:01

And how did those bombs in Libya reach the horn of Africa again?

And how is that question related to what I said? I said sub-saharan African young men often try to get to Europe and claim that they want to become rich and famous here. And I said we have the right to send them back... Where do the bombs come in?
If you do want me to make a connection, since we bombed Gaddhafi it became a lot easier for them to board a boat and head off to Europe.

Yes, when bombs are dropped sometimes (often? depends on where you drop them) you will hit unintentional targets and kill people who are not the target of the operation/campaign. I can assure you that I am not Kadagar, for one I do not share his belief in the genetic impact on intelligence and ability. I'm not sure how reliable the source quoted is, that organisation is omitting the biggest player in bombings in Syria (or well, the two biggest players), but that is really besides the point. It is indisputable that civilians have died due to coalition bombings. My contention was whether this was a target of the campaign or not, which you appear to not have addressed?

I am simply disputing the notion that Europe is responsible for the push factors of why these people flee. If we had been dropping bombs all over Africa over the past decade then that argument would have a point, however it does not.

See, this is the problem, you talk about push factors for these people and ignore that even unintentional bombing of civilians can be an enormous push factor...
And then there was the western bombing and occupation of Iraq that was such a failure that ISIS spawned and became a huge push factor in the first place. You can say it was well-intentioned and this and that, but that does not change that it pretty much directly lead to these developments. And people need to take responsibility for their actions, or so I've heard. In that way it's funny of course that Iraq was mostly Britain and the US and now they hardly want anyone fleeing from ISIS. They will probably blame the Iraqi army but maybe they just weren't trained well enough...

Certainly people attempting to get a better life for themselves is something which is understandable. These are people just as we are, they are not vermin or barbarians. That does not mean that we must open our arms and borders for them however, something which you agree on?

Yes, as I said, I can understand why people want a better life, but we still can't take all of them. We could however stop screwing them over economically for our own gain given that we are doing really fine already anyway. Not going to happen, I know.
But consider that companies like De Beers and so on extract a lot of wealth from African soil and are mostly remnants of the colonial days. However, the wealth they collect mostly goes to Europe instead of benefitting the supposedly sovereign nations... If rebels try to fight it, we send advisors to the governments loyal to us to fight them. Not that the rebels were always a better choice but we do make sure usually that the governments keep our corporations operating and so on. Lately it seems that China and other Asian nations start to invest heavily in Africa, we will see how that goes (I assume not very well for the Africans either), but just because they also exploit others that does not make us any better.
If you want more examples:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34707266
http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-17/african-monetary-union-stirs-criticism-of-france
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html
http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1682425/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25660385
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/852417/illegal_european_fishing_contributing_to_poverty_a nd_piracy_in_africa.html

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle. And let in the ones who are actually fleeing from terrible circumstances such as war and persecution.

Personally as far as I can assess the situation, the majority of the influx of people are not as a whole incompatible with society and will not disrupt our lives to any great extent. Under international law, countries have an obligation to receive their citizens. The "clever" thing to do for these countries would then be to torture the people who return, which would result in us being unable to send them back. Of course bombing those countries will not solve anything and create more misery. Instead we should freeze foreign aid and start embargoing such countries unless they agree to play by the rules. Such as Afghanistan refusing to accept the "horde" of "children" which have arrived in Sweden recently. Why on earth should we be giving their government a single cent while they refuse to accept their own citizens?

I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but we pay Morocco, Algeria etc. to keep all the Africans at bay. They also refuse to take some people back, partially, I assume, because they do not have Moroccan passports (anymore) or came to Morocco from elsewhere and so on. Now if we stop paying them, they will just let everyone enter a boat or let thousands of people climb into Spanish territory. At the moment they do already beat them up severely if they catch them because we (the Spanish) pay them to do that. The following report covers that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqOlxNQABI

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 15:19

And how is that question related to what I said? I said sub-saharan African young men often try to get to Europe and claim that they want to become rich and famous here. And I said we have the right to send them back... Where do the bombs come in?
If you do want me to make a connection, since we bombed Gaddhafi it became a lot easier for them to board a boat and head off to Europe.

See, this is the problem, you talk about push factors for these people and ignore that even unintentional bombing of civilians can be an enormous push factor...
And then there was the western bombing and occupation of Iraq that was such a failure that ISIS spawned and became a huge push factor in the first place. You can say it was well-intentioned and this and that, but that does not change that it pretty much directly lead to these developments. And people need to take responsibility for their actions, or so I've heard. In that way it's funny of course that Iraq was mostly Britain and the US and now they hardly want anyone fleeing from ISIS. They will probably blame the Iraqi army but maybe they just weren't trained well enough...

Yes, as I said, I can understand why people want a better life, but we still can't take all of them. We could however stop screwing them over economically for our own gain given that we are doing really fine already anyway. Not going to happen, I know.
But consider that companies like De Beers and so on extract a lot of wealth from African soil and are mostly remnants of the colonial days. However, the wealth they collect mostly goes to Europe instead of benefitting the supposedly sovereign nations... If rebels try to fight it, we send advisors to the governments loyal to us to fight them. Not that the rebels were always a better choice but we do make sure usually that the governments keep our corporations operating and so on. Lately it seems that China and other Asian nations start to invest heavily in Africa, we will see how that goes (I assume not very well for the Africans either), but just because they also exploit others that does not make us any better.
If you want more examples:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34707266
http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-04-17/african-monetary-union-stirs-criticism-of-france
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/eu-subsidies-deny-africas-farmers-of-their-livelihood-478419.html
http://fm4.orf.at/stories/1682425/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-25660385
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/852417/illegal_european_fishing_contributing_to_poverty_a nd_piracy_in_africa.html

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle. And let in the ones who are actually fleeing from terrible circumstances such as war and persecution.

I'm not sure about Afghanistan, but we pay Morocco, Algeria etc. to keep all the Africans at bay. They also refuse to take some people back, partially, I assume, because they do not have Moroccan passports (anymore) or came to Morocco from elsewhere and so on. Now if we stop paying them, they will just let everyone enter a boat or let thousands of people climb into Spanish territory. At the moment they do already beat them up severely if they catch them because we (the Spanish) pay them to do that. The following report covers that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmqOlxNQABI

It is related to the claim that Europe is responsible for the push factors (we are responsible for most of the pull factors mind), something which you might not have stated but which has been stated by other posters. Since last summer most people come through Greece/Turkey though, no? Either way since we don't seem to disagree on this I'll drop the subject.

Well, I would guess that the push factor of coalition strikes occassionally killing civilians pales in insignificance compared to Syrian forces, Russian forces, Al-Nusra, ISIS etc. etc. How many people actually flee from coalition strikes specifically? How many flee from ISIS areas, as opposed to the rest of the country? Europe as a whole was largely not part of the Iraq war, but if you want to send the bill to UK and the US I won't mind. I'm sure we could tally up a fairly large invoice in Sweden, and your German politicians would likely jump at the chance to have someone else pay?

Is Germany doing fine? Sweden is certainly not. If you could send some of that blood diamond money our way it would be a big help. Companies are not countries nor do they represent the citizens living in those countries. You are mixing pears and apples claiming that we are responsible for De Beers and should pay the price. I'm not sure what I have said that makes you think I believe we should treat them like cattle... But to be clear I believe we should treat them as human beings. You know, since that is what they are. Another question, if you are sitting in a safe refugee camp, are you then fleeing from war if you leave that camp?

Generally they refuse to take back minors and we usually cannot send back children unless someone will receive them. Generally because they do not want career criminals who would continue to be career criminals, which is understandable on some level, but if they are citizens then they have to take them anyway. The Spanish problem could largely be solved by giving up those enclaves, perhaps in return for getting Gibraltar back? I dunno, just musing on how to solve the issue in a nicer way. Thanks for the video, I'll look at it later.

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 15:48

Where is the first time I did?

Hyenas comparison.

And no I don't do that, your mind is playing tricks on you. Well known defence-meganism called cognitive-dissonance. What you think you see isn't there. The brain starts connecting dots if something is too confusing when it has already has made up it's mind. The equation no longer counts, just the outcome

So you made a mistake. You meant to say "who" but said "what" instead, is that right?

Pannonian

02-23-2016, 15:51

We can debate for a long time about some of it being technically illegal but the fact remains that greedy Europeans who may in some cases have almost more financials than entire african states (i.e. can afford better equipment, bribes, etc.) are taking advantage of their weakness. Again, doesn't mean we have to take them all, but we could at least treat them like humans and not like cattle.

Treating them like humans also involves treating them as citizens of another country, which by definition means that other country has responsibility for them, not us. One of the arguments against dumping traitorous UK citizens in Syria is that, as UK citizens, they are our responsibility. As much as I don't like this, I accept it, but it also means other countries can't dump their citizens on us, using some kind of blame argument. They're their citizens, not ours.

Fragony

02-23-2016, 15:59

Hyenas comparison.

So you made a mistake. You meant to say "who" but said "what" instead, is that right?

So if a woman calls you a pig when your table-manners failed she's dehumanising you? Try again, you already decided on the outcome, equation please. I called them hyena's because they isolated a victin, encircled the victims (1000 or so) and started groping and ripping underwear. A second circle kept others out of the way.

edit, don't sweat it Hussie I know you don't dislike me

Husar

02-23-2016, 16:14

Well, I would guess that the push factor of coalition strikes occassionally killing civilians pales in insignificance compared to Syrian forces, Russian forces, Al-Nusra, ISIS etc. etc. How many people actually flee from coalition strikes specifically? How many flee from ISIS areas, as opposed to the rest of the country? Europe as a whole was largely not part of the Iraq war, but if you want to send the bill to UK and the US I won't mind. I'm sure we could tally up a fairly large invoice in Sweden, and your German politicians would likely jump at the chance to have someone else pay?

As I said, you can't just single out airstrikes, the Russians may not be there today if ISIS hadn't invaded and so on.
Poland was also part of Iraq, another country that strictly refuses to take any actual refugees from the mess it has created. Either way, you can't always just single out individual countries, Germany gave weapons to the Kurds and now Turkey claims their soldiers are killed with German weapons, Turkey is also our ally and semi-friend and whatnot. It's a complicated and messy situation but we can't just wash our hands and say we have nothing to do with it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bofors and other Swedish companies made quite a bit of money selling guns to actors in the region but I do agree that your country has so far taken a very large share of refugees and wouldn't mind to distribute them across Europe, especially if that meant countries like Poland which house hardly any refugees so far would take a fairer share.

Is Germany doing fine? Sweden is certainly not. If you could send some of that blood diamond money our way it would be a big help.

De Beers is situated in Luxembourg and a lot of the money obviously ends up in Switzerland, just more cases of European countries enabling crimes elsewhere to make a profit.
And Germany is doing well financially compared to pretty much every African country.

Companies are not countries nor do they represent the citizens living in those countries. You are mixing pears and apples claiming that we are responsible for De Beers and should pay the price.

Well, technically not even a government represents all the people living in that country. DeBeers is situated and operates from Europe, the investors are most likely mostly Europeans and they make a lot of money from here while our countries do not seem to restrict them a lot and enable them to do what they do. It's also not new that governments help companies establish and maintain business abroad, lobbying for them in other countries' governments and so on and on. We have a whole lot of leverage in very poor countries and we are often willing to use it. The point was also that European people do this, people who grew up in our societies and supposedly represent our values and culture. If De Beers are not sufficient to represent us, add the fisheries, oil companies, arms salesmen, agricultural companies and others that do things which make Africa a little worse to have more profit for themselves. On the other hand there are also aid workers and the likes who genuinely want to help, but the point is that we cannot deny involvement in what goes on elsewhere.

I'm not sure what I have said that makes you think I believe we should treat them like cattle... But to be clear I believe we should treat them as human beings. You know, since that is what they are. Another question, if you are sitting in a safe refugee camp, are you then fleeing from war if you leave that camp?

You didn't say anything like that, it was just a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.
As for the refugee camp, another complicated issue and it really depends on the circumstances in said camp. If the camp is overfilled, lacks resources or if chances are you will have to be there for 20 years and raise your children there, then it would be factual imprisonment to force people to stay there, no? Usually some of them will look for a better life elsewhere and some will want to return home later on and rebuild. So yes, in a way they are still fleeing from a war, looking to build a life for themselves, which is not possible everywhere (even in Europe, but the hope-factor is very high here). Thing is that they would be neither in Europe nor in a refugee camp if it weren't for the war. This is not true for everyone who arrives in Europe of course.

Generally they refuse to take back minors and we usually cannot send back children unless someone will receive them. Generally because they do not want career criminals who would continue to be career criminals, which is understandable on some level, but if they are citizens then they have to take them anyway. The Spanish problem could largely be solved by giving up those enclaves, perhaps in return for getting Gibraltar back? I dunno, just musing on how to solve the issue in a nicer way.

I will let a British person comment on that. :wine:

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 16:48

As I said, you can't just single out airstrikes, the Russians may not be there today if ISIS hadn't invaded and so on.
Poland was also part of Iraq, another country that strictly refuses to take any actual refugees from the mess it has created. Either way, you can't always just single out individual countries, Germany gave weapons to the Kurds and now Turkey claims their soldiers are killed with German weapons, Turkey is also our ally and semi-friend and whatnot. It's a complicated and messy situation but we can't just wash our hands and say we have nothing to do with it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bofors and other Swedish companies made quite a bit of money selling guns to actors in the region but I do agree that your country has so far taken a very large share of refugees and wouldn't mind to distribute them across Europe, especially if that meant countries like Poland which house hardly any refugees so far would take a fairer share.

De Beers is situated in Luxembourg and a lot of the money obviously ends up in Switzerland, just more cases of European countries enabling crimes elsewhere to make a profit.
And Germany is doing well financially compared to pretty much every African country.

Well, technically not even a government represents all the people living in that country. DeBeers is situated and operates from Europe, the investors are most likely mostly Europeans and they make a lot of money from here while our countries do not seem to restrict them a lot and enable them to do what they do. It's also not new that governments help companies establish and maintain business abroad, lobbying for them in other countries' governments and so on and on. We have a whole lot of leverage in very poor countries and we are often willing to use it. The point was also that European people do this, people who grew up in our societies and supposedly represent our values and culture. If De Beers are not sufficient to represent us, add the fisheries, oil companies, arms salesmen, agricultural companies and others that do things which make Africa a little worse to have more profit for themselves. On the other hand there are also aid workers and the likes who genuinely want to help, but the point is that we cannot deny involvement in what goes on elsewhere.

You didn't say anything like that, it was just a general comment not aimed at anyone in particular.
As for the refugee camp, another complicated issue and it really depends on the circumstances in said camp. If the camp is overfilled, lacks resources or if chances are you will have to be there for 20 years and raise your children there, then it would be factual imprisonment to force people to stay there, no? Usually some of them will look for a better life elsewhere and some will want to return home later on and rebuild. So yes, in a way they are still fleeing from a war, looking to build a life for themselves, which is not possible everywhere (even in Europe, but the hope-factor is very high here). Thing is that they would be neither in Europe nor in a refugee camp if it weren't for the war. This is not true for everyone who arrives in Europe of course.

I will let a British person comment on that. :wine:

We are fairly strict on who we sell weapons to. I would not say it is impossible but simply that it is unlikely, and I would require a credible source to accept the notion. I agree that it is a complex situation and we can't wash our hands off it, hopefully the cease-fire will lead to peace and stability being restored in the region. Södertälje has taken in more Iraqis than the whole of the US, and that was before the Syria crisis. I don't think what Sweden has done is comparable in modern times with regards to the burden put upon society to take in such a mass of people.
While re-distribution is important, we must take into account that Poland is a much poorer country. And what is more important than that is to stop the profiteering of the smugglers who make their money on misery and death.

I am not aware that we compare ourselves with African countries, usually you compare yourself with "equals" (in the sense that Europe is much richer) like OECD countries. Though I think we have a few near-African level poor countries in some hellhole in Europe.

A government certainly represents its people, at least those which are democratically elected in Europe do. Corporations however most certainly do not. Countries are responsible for what they do, if they aid through foreign influence illegal activities obviously that is a massive problem. But as a root, countries and people are not to blame for what corporations do.

I am not suggesting we should force people to stay. But instead of housing people in tents in Sweden at 200x the cost, maybe we could send a couple of billions down to Turkey and Lebanon to make sure that the camps are well funded and can possibly provide not only food and shelter but also an education for the children. Maybe even vocational education for the adults so that they can if need be integrate into the economy of the countries in which they are residing? Given that H&M had suppliers who used illegal asylum workers in their factories, clearly these people want to work and support themselves, and should be helped to do so. Long term the only solution is of course to resolve the Syrian issue so that the people in the camps can return home. I'm sure we can both agree though that someone who has traveled through Austria, Germany and Denmark probably is no longer fleeing from war. I am anyway unaware of any bombs being dropped in those countries ;)

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 17:13

So if a woman calls you a pig when your table-manners failed she's dehumanising you? Try again, you already decided on the outcome, equation please. I called them hyena's because they isolated a victin, encircled the victims (1000 or so) and started groping and ripping underwear. A second circle kept others out of the way.

edit, don't sweat it Hussie I know you don't dislike me

Actually, that's how most of pack predators hunt. You could have called them lions just as well, but you choose hyena. You've already decided on the outcome, so you've picked hyenas.

You're continuously refuse to acknowledge actual police reports from Cologne which differ greatly from what you've been parroting. Then again, you've already decided on the outcome, so who needs fact.

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I like you Frags. People who cling to their views and ignore overwhelming number of facts which say otherwise are usually happiest. If something goes wrong, you don't have to waste time to find out why, you just blame Muslims.

Fragony

02-23-2016, 17:20

Why shouldn't I say that all were muslims if all were muslims. Doesn't mean I blame all muslims. What facts are you referring to as facts won't be kind for you

Husar

02-23-2016, 17:21

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-23-2016, 17:22

Right, you use the word refugees, another person uses the word immigrants. A person who knows how to read would at this point realize that immigrants being a different word from refugees denotes a different meaning. That is why they are different words.
But do please go ahead and paint me as a racist, clearly reading what I write is more work than building strawmen. Most impressive.

Perhaps you have a problem with comprehension...certainly, it seems, with context.

Let me repeat my previous explanation with the addition of some explanatory notes.

I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously.(synonymously means used to mean the same thing. You see the response to my point that it was not refugees was a sarcastic comment that the women had made it all up (of course) and imagined the immigrants were involved. Do you see how the word is (let me repeat) simply transplanted and used synonymously - ie to mean the same thing)

So...it's not me that doesn't understand that there is (or should be) a distinction made between the two termst is the individual who conflated the term (and my point was exactly that it was not refugees but other (illegal) immigrants). Still not get it? Frankly an average eight year old would be able to comprehend this.

"The French prosecutor's office said the fingerprints of the dead man matched a print of a person registered under the same name in Greece in October 2015. " But of course just because a passport with matching fingerprints entered the EU with the stream does not in any way mean that the person entered with that stream. :dizzy2:
The testimonials of refugees living in asylum centers about ISIS fighters is of course all just made up, we know for sure that 100% of all people who have come to Europe illegally are well intentioned people who wouldn't harm a fly.
I have yet to see you explain btw why it is that the "brains" behind the operation was believed to be in Syria when he was found and killed in Paris?

Did you miss the whole rest of the article (about 90% of it) that follows that sentence you picked out, which starts "however..."?

Of course you did. You missed it all in order that you might maintain the evidence-free concept that there is a possibility that Jihadists may be coming in with the refugees as if it is anything other than a closet-racist's get-out-of-jail free card.

wooly_mammoth

02-23-2016, 17:50

Man, if I knew you'd be making such a fuss over me interchanging "refugees" and "immigrants", I would have simply called them "sand-peeps".

Fragony

02-23-2016, 17:53

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 18:03

I don't have much time, but here are some sources for now:
http://www.thelocal.se/20140520/sweden-arms-dictators-as-defence-exports-soar
http://www.politico.eu/article/neutral-sweden-arms-pedlar-extraordinaire/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2/despite_peaceful_reputation_sweden_a_major
http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/publications/other_publ/other%20publications/Current%20trends%20in%20the%20international%20arms%20trade%20and%20implications%20for%20Sweden.pdf
(page 15)

https://krautreporter.de/1161--warum-schweden-der-militardiktatur-in-thailand-kampfflugzeuge-lieferte

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region. Or just look at the list of users of the 40mm Bofors guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun#Users
Maybe they didn't all buy them directly from Sweden, but it's an impressive list.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

Beskar

02-23-2016, 18:13

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 18:16

Perhaps you have a problem with comprehension...certainly, it seems, with context.

Let me repeat my previous explanation with the addition of some explanatory notes.

I pointed out that

"Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well...."

To which the response was made;

"Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants."

You'll note that this response is not an acceptance of my point, that it was not refugees. This argument is NOT...'you are correct, they were not refugees they were other immigrants, but was a clear conflation of the two terms. The term 'immigrants' has simply been transplanted for 'refugees' but has been used synonymously.(synonymously means used to mean the same thing. You see the response to my point that it was not refugees was a sarcastic comment that the women had made it all up (of course) and imagined the immigrants were involved. Do you see how the word is (let me repeat) simply transplanted and used synonymously - ie to mean the same thing)

So...it's not me that doesn't understand that there is (or should be) a distinction made between the two termst is the individual who conflated the term (and my point was exactly that it was not refugees but other (illegal) immigrants). Still not get it? Frankly an average eight year old would be able to comprehend this.

Did you miss the whole rest of the article (about 90% of it) that follows that sentence you picked out, which starts "however..."?

Of course you did. You missed it all in order that you might maintain the evidence-free concept that there is a possibility that Jihadists may be coming in with the refugees as if it is anything other than a closet-racist's get-out-of-jail free card.
No, immigrant is still a very much separate word from refugees. Laying the blame on immigrants when you strawman that people claim refugees (3 of which were actually newly arrived refugees btw) is correctly identifying the majority of the perpetrators in the Cologne incident. The term immigrant and refugee is not synonymous, I would urge you to ask your parents to invest in a dictionary for you to avoid these issues in the future.

No, I did not miss that. If you actually read my posts you would note that I have mentioned Sweden being a prime exporter per capita of terrorists to Syria. But I guess it is more fun to paint strawmen than to actually think and engage in a debate?
Have you stopped beating your wife?

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 18:17

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

Beskar

02-23-2016, 18:33

Altruism is a voluntary action, not one forced upon a person by strangers. In fact when strangers force you to give them your things we have a entirely different word for that...

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything. If you are discussing your nation state volunteering resources to help people who have migrated, then this is an action done voluntary by it to bring about an outcome.

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 18:38

Are there currently strangers on your doorstep forcing you to give them your property? If so, I would recommend contacting the police, not posting about it.

Otherwise, no one is forcing you to give them anything.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

Snowhobbit

02-23-2016, 18:42

In related news, apparently since Austria takes near 3 million tourists per year, their refusal to take more than 80 refugees per day is somehow obscene and outrageous. Personally I'm not sure how they are at all related, perhaps someone could explain?

Johanes Alvane vonTremirenes

02-23-2016, 19:04

As your discussion is quite amusing with all those morality issues and ad-personam arguments, i will just leave here this: playing Antigones and thinking what is right and what isn't in terms of politics is quite pointless. The politics is seldom about morality, it is always about profit.

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 19:31

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

Who?

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

Decide? That's a nice word for it.

AE Bravo

02-23-2016, 19:39

The last one is in German and explains how the Swedish government managed to circumvent the restrictions (partly because the office responsible to enforce them is not very powerful) in order to sell airplanes to the military dictatorship in Thailand. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Pakistan are probably not the safest spots to send weapons to in order to end war and refugee streams from their region
I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-23-2016, 20:03

I don't see how sending weapons to these countries has anything to do with high refugee streams. They are in fact the only safe spots close to Syria and are part of a pending regional framework to stabilize Syria in the future as an anti-Islamist front. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi, UAE, and even Sudan are going to play an important role in Syria and managing the refugee crisis.

Even though two of those countries support opposition they are the only hope in a long-term solution in Syria. Or is it just that they're circumventing the restrictions that doesn't sit well with you?

Oh my.... Saudi Arabia as part of anti-Islamist front? Truly?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

In case you didn't know

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092#.p729u4q01

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.

rajpoot

02-23-2016, 20:05

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

Fragony

02-23-2016, 20:11

You know who

Husar

02-23-2016, 20:14

Sweden makes quality stuff. But tell me, even if they have a good reason to want to move to Sweden, what reason do they have to not behave themselves in Sweden? Only South-Africa has worse rape-statistics. Guess whos doing it.

None, did I ever say otherwise? The only issue I have with what you say is that when you talk about the people who move there and the ones who do not behave, you say "they" in both cases, which can easily look like you mean exactly the same group of people (i.e. all of them). It's not so hard to say "some of them" in the second instances to make it clear that you mean a sub-group, is it? Or are you actually saying that none of the immigrants in Sweden can behave themselves?
And please don't talk about common sense or whatever, you do this all the time and it confuses people all the time.

Thanks for the links.
The plans to build an arms factory in Saudi Arabia is of course far from acceptable. But I cannot see any trace in your sources (good that they are for the matter they discuss), for Sweden supplying offensive military equipment to states which are party to the conflict in Syria. There is no flood of refugees from Pakistan, Egypt or Thailand, though I will agree that we should not sell them weapons either. One of your articles writes about technology transfers and sales to India, which I would consider a good thing if anything. As for the Bofors guns, it is simply so that once a weapon has been sold there is very little that the Swedish state can do to control where they go next.

I'm not against arms deals in general, but some governments just can't be trusted with them. Including the US government apparently. While I like Colombia in general, it is currently not a country to which german arms exports are legal. The rules state that arms cannot be sold to any country if that country wants to resell them. Heckler & Koch sold guns to the US Army and they then sold or gave them on to Colombia. The german police raided the Heckler & Koch offices as a result due to the suspicion that Heckler & Koch was aware the guns would not stay in the USA. So yes, it is not always completely controllable, but I'd say it's pretty clear like you say, that countries like Saudi Arabia are not reliable customers for our weapons. We can't even exclude that they don't hand some of them to their allies in Syria or elsewhere. In addition Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently involved in a war in the region to support their own interests and are definitely using European weapons such as the Leclerc tanks of the UAE. I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees and Saudi Arabia is not exactly known to have our best interests in mind anyway. If even the US ignore our weapon sales restrictions in the most blatant way, how can we trust SA or other unreliable countries to abide by them?

As a fun tidbit, are you aware that Bofors was founded as a way to circumvent restrictions on Nazi German weapons production and export?

Nope, that's pretty interesting though. I only knew that a whole lot of nations used the 40mm design though, apparently some were derivatives or modified ones, but overall quite a widespread gun.

Are you aware of the concept of taxes? It is this fun notion where we collectively decide to give the government money in order for services to be rendered. Not to be squandered to the tune that we spend more on newly arrived immigrants this year than the entire Afghan state budget including aid.

There are so many things to say about that:
1) I wouldn't say it is squandered on all of the immigrants.
2) I like the idea that I pay taxes to help those who are more in need, both Germans and foreigners.
3) If you do not like what the government spends taxes on, you can elect a different government. In some cases it may have other consequences though or require a new party. Democracy isn't always easy.
4) If your other countrymen do not agree with you and do not vote for the government you want, what are you going to do? Flee to somewhere else to save your precious taxes from being squandered? ~;)

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 20:20

You know who

Voldemort?

Greyblades

02-23-2016, 20:36

More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

Pannonian

02-23-2016, 20:39

tl;dr answer to the thread title: Altruism.

(Someone has to say it.)

I've had all altrusim towards the inhabitants of that region beaten out of me from a years of being told that we're to blame for all that we do and don't do. Starting with the conclusion that we're to blame, then working backwards to define what it was that we did or didn't do that resulted in the mess that we're to blame for. If we're to blame for sticking our heads where it's not wanted, the logical response is to stop sticking our heads anywhere, and let the people of that region take care of themselves, free from our interference.

Pannonian

02-23-2016, 20:50

AE Bravo

02-23-2016, 21:22

...there was no civil war (note the term "insurgents" used to describe those fighting Assad), this is a war brought down upon Assad by his enemies, for various geo-political, economic and ethnic/religious reasons. Selling arms to the likes of Saudi-Arabia (or any of the so-called "moderate" rebels) is pretty much the only reason there is war in Syria.
Of course, that's all common knowledge. I was suggesting that the problem (ksa) is the biggest part of the solution one way or another and arming them doesn't mean arming extremists in Syria because that's a separate issue. Arms sales are for Saudi security and Yemen, not arming Syrian opposition.

I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees
Probably all parties, but cutting them off won't help either.

Sarmatian

02-23-2016, 21:27

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

Pannonian

02-24-2016, 00:07

Actually, the bad part comes from using white man's burden excuse to basically plunder everything that's not Europe and USA.

Hong Kong is indeed an example of colony governed responsibly. Personally, I don't think that had much to do with the well being of Chinese there, but because it suited British interest. Those two coincided in a few cases, but in majority of cases didn't. I don't see a reason why Britain should feel guilty today, but I hate the whitewashing this topic usually gets from British people - we built some schools, we were mostly just trading, we invested some money back.

It's in the past, nothing to do with modern Britain, but it needs to be acknowledged for what it was.

You should read about the Mui Tsai then, where the British ignored their pledge to rule according to Chinese custom and traditions, and ended a longstanding Chinese custom because of British moral values, against much native Chinese opposition. Today, that tradition is seen as a source of shame for the Chinese, and its banning by the British as an overdue move to bring Hong Kong in line with the modern world and values. Absolutely nothing to do with British interests, and everything to do with Britain's own tradition of opposing slavery and anything that smells of slavery.

Kralizec

02-24-2016, 00:43

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

....

Also, Gaius is right to stress the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee". I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-24-2016, 01:00

Oh, and Snowhobbit is entirely justified in making a fuss about the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee"*. I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(* an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

Errmm...that was actually my point.....that the terms were being used interchangably....a point Snowhobbit was oblivious to, actually...

Kralizec

02-24-2016, 01:09

You're right, I looked at page 2 again and it seems I confused your post about Keulen with someone else. I'll edit my earlier post.

Fragony

02-24-2016, 03:55

Voldemort?

Did someone ever tell you you are boring, must have

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 07:18

Who?

Decide? That's a nice word for it.
Our feminists have decided that the common denominator is as always men, so the answer is men are doing it! Horrible men...

Yes, we have decided that it is better than not doing so, we have additionally voted for representatives to decide how much we should pay in tax and where it should be spent.

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 07:31

None, did I ever say otherwise? The only issue I have with what you say is that when you talk about the people who move there and the ones who do not behave, you say "they" in both cases, which can easily look like you mean exactly the same group of people (i.e. all of them). It's not so hard to say "some of them" in the second instances to make it clear that you mean a sub-group, is it? Or are you actually saying that none of the immigrants in Sweden can behave themselves?
And please don't talk about common sense or whatever, you do this all the time and it confuses people all the time.

I'm not against arms deals in general, but some governments just can't be trusted with them. Including the US government apparently. While I like Colombia in general, it is currently not a country to which german arms exports are legal. The rules state that arms cannot be sold to any country if that country wants to resell them. Heckler & Koch sold guns to the US Army and they then sold or gave them on to Colombia. The german police raided the Heckler & Koch offices as a result due to the suspicion that Heckler & Koch was aware the guns would not stay in the USA. So yes, it is not always completely controllable, but I'd say it's pretty clear like you say, that countries like Saudi Arabia are not reliable customers for our weapons. We can't even exclude that they don't hand some of them to their allies in Syria or elsewhere. In addition Saudi Arabia and the UAE are currently involved in a war in the region to support their own interests and are definitely using European weapons such as the Leclerc tanks of the UAE. I'm not entirely up-to-date on who the bad guys are down there but it certainly produces a lot of refugees and Saudi Arabia is not exactly known to have our best interests in mind anyway. If even the US ignore our weapon sales restrictions in the most blatant way, how can we trust SA or other unreliable countries to abide by them?

Nope, that's pretty interesting though. I only knew that a whole lot of nations used the 40mm design though, apparently some were derivatives or modified ones, but overall quite a widespread gun.

There are so many things to say about that:
1) I wouldn't say it is squandered on all of the immigrants.
2) I like the idea that I pay taxes to help those who are more in need, both Germans and foreigners.
3) If you do not like what the government spends taxes on, you can elect a different government. In some cases it may have other consequences though or require a new party. Democracy isn't always easy.
4) If your other countrymen do not agree with you and do not vote for the government you want, what are you going to do? Flee to somewhere else to save your precious taxes from being squandered? ~;)
Well, obviously if we are selling it to someone with that someone having the intention to sell it to a third party then we are to some extent responsible for doing our due diligence and preventing that within reasonable measures. However if someone 5-10 years later decides to sell it, there is little we can do. Equally if say the Iraqi army decides to flee head over heels when they outnumber their foe 20 to 1, we cannot be held responsible for the fact that ISIS seized all of their nice big guns. We can't trust SA, though the biggest reason to not sell to them is how they treat their own population. Which is why the attempt to do so was in violation of Swedish law and a fake company had been set up to assist in the deal.

1) It is not squandered on all immigrants per definition. But we spend more than the entire Afghan budget+aid on unaccompanied "minors", at a minimum we spend 350 euroes per day per "child". I put these words in quotations because we have had "children" who are 20, 25, 30 and in one case 40+ years old. Or take for example the fact that we have housed people in tents at about 200x the cost of housing people in tents in Lebanon/Turkey. That is a waste of money that could be better spent anywhere pretty much, especially in the refugee camps where we would get a lot of bang for our bucks. Did you know that this has caused us to cut foreign aid to the tune that one of the programs estimate a further 20,000 will die from AIDS/Malaria/TB and a further 800,000 will get infected? This is waste.
2) Yes, helping other people is good, but then we should help people who are in need. Like the people who live in the camps who are too poor to pay a smuggler several thousand Euros to be smuggled into Europe.
3) The sad fact of the matter is that we are ruled by a minority government in which the opposition has forced the government to make their budget with the communists. So until 2018 I can't affect much change, in the meanwhile I will have to bear it, but I will reserve the right to bitch and moan about it!
4) If we continue down this dark path (all signs point to us heading off that path finally) then the least of my concern is tax money. But so long as the EU remain, I may well exercise my right to move to another country if that looks like a better option. I should add that I am not getting taxed up the wazoo currently, but I don't see why that should make me support blatant waste of tax money? I'm not saying it should be given back directly to the tax payer, I'm saying we should spend it where it gets more impact. Are you aware that we spend more on this than the entire UNHCR budget for refugees? Imagine how much the situation in those camps could be improved with twice the money! The UNHCR is quite efficient at managing the camps.

As always I'm rather late to the party (hey hey!) but I'll leave my two cents here.
IMO EU isn't responsible. And they shouldn't be allowing the hundreds of thousands inside their borders.
More than a hundred years ago there was this thing about the 'White Man's Burden' which made a lot of European nations do stuff that today would be considered really really bad. What they're doing today is perhaps equally bad.
You lot don't have any burden or moral obligation. Whatever has happened has happened. Doing stupider stuff to fix that isn't going to help anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right and two stupid actions don't make an intelligent action.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don't mind could you clarify what you mean by "Doing stupider stuff"? Are you referring to bombing campaigns/interference in the Middle East? The current refugee situation?

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 07:34

Errmm...that was actually my point.....that the terms were being used interchangably....a point Snowhobbit was oblivious to, actually...

That you use words improperly is no reason to keep using them improperly. The different words denote different things but if you want to insist that apples are pears that is your problem.

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 07:35

Also, Gaius is right to stress the distinction between "migrant" and "refugee". I don't want to point fingers as some people just make an honest mistake in confusing the two, but often it's just sloppiness. Many Dutch people, including journalists, use the terms interchangably and this thread is a good illustration of how this can pollute a discussion.

(an alternative term is asylum seeker; meaning anyone who claims to be a refugee but hasn't been through the procedure yet)

But Gaius is not stressing the distinction, he is claiming that they are two words meaning the same thing.

Sarmatian

02-24-2016, 08:08

You should read about the Mui Tsai then, where the British ignored their pledge to rule according to Chinese custom and traditions, and ended a longstanding Chinese custom because of British moral values, against much native Chinese opposition. Today, that tradition is seen as a source of shame for the Chinese, and its banning by the British as an overdue move to bring Hong Kong in line with the modern world and values. Absolutely nothing to do with British interests, and everything to do with Britain's own tradition of opposing slavery and anything that smells of slavery.

I'm sure there are positive examples and cases where British went against their interest to help the local population, but on the whole, the point still stands.

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

Really? Well try using both and tell me if the reaction was the same.

Did someone ever tell you you are boring, must have

While you consider repeating childless mutti and wir schafen das about 50 times is an example of a stimulating discussion. Interesting...

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 08:23

Really? Well try using both and tell me if the reaction was the same.

I hope you are aware that the connotation of words can be very different in different cultures. In Sweden neither of those words would render you a slap if used. You might be viewed as impolite depending on the situation though (or deranged).

Fragony

02-24-2016, 08:38

While you consider repeating childless mutti and wir schafen das about 50 times is an example of a stimulating discussion. Interesting...

Of course it is, just not the one you want. Merkel is known to have a messias-complex, also within her own party. Wir schaffen das is the only things she keeps repeating, more than I do

Gilrandir

02-24-2016, 09:36

Thirdly, context Frags, if a woman sees a man's penis and calls him a horse, or a stud after sex, she is not insulting him. It's a metaphor. Calling someone a pig is a metaphor for one's lack of table manners, or any manners for that matter, and can be done as a good natured jest, especially in male-female relationships or among friends. Comparing someone with hyenas is way worse than that, as hyenas are most commonly associated with something ugly, dirty, smelly, feeding on carcasses etc... None of the is true, actually, but we project that onto them. So, comparing someone with a hyena is very insulting. You already knew that, but you've already decided on the outcome, blah, blah, blah....

I don't see a comparison with a hyeana as something entirely different from comparison to a pig. I've heard people make hyena comparisons before in other contexts. When I didn't have my drivers license yet my instructor called bicycle and scooter drivers hyeanas whenever he saw them breaking trafic rules (happens often), like callously ignoring traffic lights when they think they can safely get away with it. Likewise, comparisons with vultures are commonplace when people are perceived to take financial advantage of other people's misery. The idea being that both hyenas and vultures are opportunistic and "cowardly". It's not flattering, but calling it "dehumanising" is a long stretch.

In fact, all of those examples are metaphors. Metaphor has nothing to do with evaluation. It appears whenever one concept domain is viewed as another concept domain. Evaluations imparted to the purpose of the process don't change its nature.

Yes, the only thing separating me from a racist is that I am faster to insult.
This is a delusion. Don't flatter yourself that there is only one thing.

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 09:37

This is a delusion. Don't flatter yourself that there is only one thing.

Why don't you just go back into the hole you crawled out of? Or did Russia take that back also?

Gilrandir

02-24-2016, 11:41

Why don't you just go back into the hole you crawled out of? Or did Russia take that back also?

The ultimate argument which is always handy. Didn't expect anything else, though.
Let's see what kind of hole immigrants will make your country into, Chillouthalfling.

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 11:54

The ultimate argument which is always handy. Didn't expect anything else, though.
Let's see what kind of hole immigrants will make your country into, Chillouthalfling.

Oh you are one of those? Sorry I don't have the time of day for Ukranian Nazies.

Sarmatian

02-24-2016, 12:44

Of course it is, just not the one you want. Merkel is known to have a messias-complex, also within her own party. Wir schaffen das is the only things she keeps repeating, more than I do

Funny how messiah-complex only surfaced when the refugee crisis began.

Anyway, if you want to be taken seriously, stop parroting slogans and start acknowledging facts.
Otherwise, I will continue to call bollox on your posts when I feel like it. At the moment I feel like doing it every time but I may get bored in the future. If you can't live with that, you can put me on ignore and you won't even know when I call bollox.

Oh you are one of those? Sorry I don't have the time of day for Ukranian Nazies.

I see an epic yo mamma battle coming soon.

Fragony

02-24-2016, 12:49

Migrant-crises came when the childless-mutti said everybody is welcome and decided to ignore the Dublin-treaty. That is the fact Aristotallos

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 12:53

I see an epic yo mamma battle coming soon.

Yo mamma so fat it takes 100 polite green men to carry her away?

Sarmatian

02-24-2016, 13:59

Migrant-crises came when the childless-mutti said everybody is welcome and decided to ignore the Dublin-treaty. That is the fact Aristotallos

Dublin treaty didn't envisage anything on this scale. Enforcing Dublin treaty fully would burden Greece with more than 3/4 of a million refugees.

Main goal of Dublin treaty was to stop orbiting asylum seekers, those that are denied in one country and then move to the next, then the next and so on.

Yo mamma so fat it takes 100 polite green men to carry her away?

Yo mamma's so ugly that even the refugees won't molest her.

Fragony

02-24-2016, 14:40

errrrrm, no

I don't know Snowhobbit's mom by the way so can't comment on that

Snowhobbit

02-24-2016, 15:37

Yo mamma's so ugly that even the refugees won't molest her.

I'd hope not! She's been dead for 3 years :D

Fragony

02-24-2016, 16:43

ouch that was painfull, this is where people with good manners usually apoligise

Sarmatian

02-24-2016, 17:03

You can't start a yo mamma battle and expect people not to answer.

Fragony

02-24-2016, 17:37

Sarmatian

02-24-2016, 18:58

Can expect people to apoligise if they could have hurted someone's feelings just to be sure you didn't. And don't even start about me comparing those assholes in Collogne to hyena's, I am not offended when my sometimes girlfriend calls all men dogs.

Bad manners muchacha

I didn't hurt anybody's feelings, as evidenced by the big smile emoticon. And it is utterly my decision. If you believe I did something wrong, that is your prerogative, but I don't really care.

AE Bravo

02-24-2016, 19:59

Greyblades

02-24-2016, 20:46

Europe may be the most (socially) racist places in the world, some of the posts here validate that. It's no wonder that a religion with no racial context cannot adapt into a civil society that has that elephant in the room. It's funny how the privileged are irritated by people who just escaped hell, something they haven't had a taste of. Thats what it comes down to with the right, entitlement.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/934/060.png

Pannonian

02-24-2016, 21:36

Papewaio

02-24-2016, 21:41

http://www.vice.com/read/german-mma-fighter-mistaken-for-refugee-mistreated-by-paramedics-876

Europe may be the most (socially) racist places in the world, some of the posts here validate that. It's no wonder that a religion with no racial context cannot adapt into a civil society that has that elephant in the room. It's funny how the privileged are irritated by people who just escaped hell, something they haven't had a taste of. Thats what it comes down to with the right, entitlement.

The elephant in the room is that virtually every ME country is dominated by one religious sect or another and is a hell hole that these people are trying to escape.

Religion and its opiate uses on the masses is the issue not enlightened democracies. Proof is in the lack of upward mobility, corruption and war in the countries the people are escaping and a lack of the ME countries of the same religion resolving the problems with a spectrum of initiatives ie boots on the ground, NGOs or taking in all the refugees themselves.

Western workers compounds get attacked all the time in the ME even in supposedly stable countries. What would be headline news in the west is quietly swept under in the ME.

Comeback when they have functioning middle class democracies with social mobility rather then sponging off a geographical fluke of oil that is found, pumped, refined by other people. ME will have zero clout at the UN as soon as oil subsidies are removed and other energy sources are utlised. Talk about failed states, take away oil and they have nothing the rest of the world wants.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-24-2016, 22:00

But Gaius is not stressing the distinction, he is claiming that they are two words meaning the same thing.

Your incomprehension is astounding. Truly, I can't think of an individual I have ever entered discourse with who has had less insight or understanding...even of just a couple of sentences.

Readthis slowly, one word at a time. I was pointing out that the term immigrants had simply been switched for the word refugees but was clearly referring to the same proposition - ie the words were being used snonymously (to mean the same thing). NOT that the words mean the same thing (or rather, they ought not) but that they had simply been conflated. I am perfectly aware that the two terms are distinct,hence my initial suggestion that the idea that the crimes related were carried out by "refugees" (specifically, as opposed to the more general "immigrants")was something certain posters might need to get upto speed with (the implication was exactly that it was not "refugees", but was actually other "immigrants") and the next post (which you appear to want to defend...???) was a sarcastic post conflating the two terms.

Christ on a bike, could you be any more clueless? Read the actual posts....you know, the words, in their order and you'll decipher what they mean. That's how this whole writing and reading malarkey works.

AE Bravo

02-24-2016, 22:30

The elephant in the room is that virtually every ME country is dominated by one religious sect or another and is a hell hole that these people are trying to escape.

Religion and its opiate uses on the masses is the issue not enlightened democracies. Proof is in the lack of upward mobility, corruption and war in the countries the people are escaping and a lack of the ME countries of the same religion resolving the problems with a spectrum of initiatives ie boots on the ground, NGOs or taking in all the refugees themselves.

Western workers compounds get attacked all the time in the ME even in supposedly stable countries. What would be headline news in the west is quietly swept under in the ME.

Comeback when they have functioning middle class democracies with social mobility rather then sponging off a geographical fluke of oil that is found, pumped, refined by other people. ME will have zero clout at the UN as soon as oil subsidies are removed and other energy sources are utlised. Talk about failed states, take away oil and they have nothing the rest of the world wants.
The problem with the European rightwing mind is that...

1) Their government displaces an entire population abroad

2) Displaced people come flooding

...and they blame it on their people rather than their government. Basically their governments are fucking them over with no repercussion, Islamophobia/xenophobia is a scapegoat.

Papewaio

02-24-2016, 23:01

Pannonian

02-24-2016, 23:14

Oh I agree with you on that.

If someone is doing such horrible things we bomb them.

Then we either follow up with boots on the ground AND stabilize the region OR accept the refugees running away from the failed state.

EDIT

Also the Enemy of your Enemy might be a good reason to make friends with your Enemy not make friends with the second lot.

Bombing Lybia to help Gadaffis enemies isn't smart when those enemies are now dominated by Caliphate in a box.

Or better still, in the future when the Muslim country regime du jour maltreats their population, we do nothing for or against either side, and leave them to their own devices. If there is displacement, it's nothing to do with us. I was strongly against intervention in Libya and Syria (and Iraq for that matter).

Brenus

02-24-2016, 23:56

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 00:18

"Or better still, in the future when the Muslim country regime du jour maltreats their population" Much better than that in the past. We helped in training their Secret Police against the opponents of the Tyrant's of the day, unionists, leftists, intellectual, liberal and others. We left open the only way for oppressed population to protest to the Religious we though could be tamed...
The Coup against Mossadegh gave the Throne to the Shah and ended to Khomeini... Well done.
The guy who did that got probably the same kind of training than the one who send Lenin back to Russia!...

I'm sure if we go back far enough, we can find something to flagellate ourselves with. Never mind the people who actually do these things and order these things to be done. Somewhere along the line, we can find a paperweight that we sold to an associate to one of these regimes, that is the real reason why these things happen.

Snowhobbit

02-25-2016, 07:30

You can't start a yo mamma battle and expect people not to answer.

No feelings have been hurt, perhaps I should not have posted about the death, or maybe waited to pull my trumph card later? Either way there is certainly not any need for an apology. Like you say, don't play if you don't want to play.

ouch that was painfull, this is where people with good manners usually apoligise

To be clear I am not offended at all, though I suppose it is more fun when I throw that in there with friends (you get a lot of heww and hemming)

Snowhobbit

02-25-2016, 07:33

Your incomprehension is astounding. Truly, I can't think of an individual I have ever entered discourse with who has had less insight or understanding...even of just a couple of sentences.

Readthis slowly, one word at a time. I was pointing out that the term immigrants had simply been switched for the word refugees but was clearly referring to the same proposition - ie the words were being used snonymously (to mean the same thing). NOT that the words mean the same thing (or rather, they ought not) but that they had simply been conflated. I am perfectly aware that the two terms are distinct,hence my initial suggestion that the idea that the crimes related were carried out by "refugees" (specifically, as opposed to the more general "immigrants")was something certain posters might need to get upto speed with (the implication was exactly that it was not "refugees", but was actually other "immigrants") and the next post (which you appear to want to defend...???) was a sarcastic post conflating the two terms.

Christ on a bike, could you be any more clueless? Read the actual posts....you know, the words, in their order and you'll decipher what they mean. That's how this whole writing and reading malarkey works.

Don't blame me that your parents denied you a dictionary while growing up. You'd think they'd have one in school that you could have borrowed though? I suppose we should be happy that you can string a sentence together anyway :)

I'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

Fragony

02-25-2016, 08:54

To be clear I am not offended at all, though I suppose it is more fun when I throw that in there with friends (you get a lot of heww and hemming)

Oh I believe you, but I would have wanted to be sure of that

Brenus

02-25-2016, 09:12

"Never mind the people who actually do these things and order these things to be done." Who said that? The Shah, of course, was the one responsible for the Savak. But the ones who trained the Savak knowing what the Savak was used for are as much guilty. When Kissinger allowed the CIA to overthrough a elected but socialist leader in Chile, he is as much guilty for the dictatorship of Pinochet than Pinochet was (quote: I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves).
So, yeah, blame the local leaders for what they are guilty, but know as well that if they got power, it is because we killed, neutralised, dispersed, ventilated and make disappeared the ones who could have prevented the atrocities to happen. It was/is a joined adventure.

http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

Fragony

02-25-2016, 10:34

Oh snap, new prognose is that by 2020 3.6 million of the childless mutti's little children, come to meeee' will be in Germany. Pray tell, where must they live, where can their children go to school, where can they work. Gawd is that woman disruptive.

Is she insane? Or did she won the Clodenhove-Kalergi price in 2010 with good reason

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 10:47

Brenus

02-25-2016, 13:23

Sarmatian

02-25-2016, 14:07

Is she insane?

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 14:35

"So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?" :laugh4: Partially, if you consider Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (allied with Assad).
The mess in Syria is due to a second invasion of Iraq without any reason. The very-ill conceived invasion, followed by a absolute disaster in the immediate post-war policy (like making 2 millions unemployed but armed former soldiers, firing of all the administration because they were previously in Saddam's party -as if they had a choice), the absolute ignorance of the local reality created a vacuum of power and corruption, even bigger than before, spreading poverty in the population, pulverisation of the Iraqi society and return to old structures (tribal and religious).
All this created the destruction of the national identity, and this lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army (that no reason to fight for a non-existent country) as show with the collapse of this army facing IS.
This collapse allowed the creation of a territory and the seizure of natural resources which will help IS to control more territory and population.
And because IS is ideologically close to Saudis, and they are mostly Arabs and Sunnites, they went in direct confrontation with Iran/Shiites, and of course, the Syrian Alawites/ Assad, Kurds. Because they are in confrontation with the Kurds, Turkey decided to trade with IS and to attack the Kurds in the back, having themselves a problem with Kurdish nationalism. They were inching for this, as a autonomous region in Iraq was not for their taste. And, at the same time, they were helping the Turkish populations in Syria with the long term aim of an annexation, when Assad Regime would have fall.
USA and Europe turned a blind eye on this, as they wanted Assad regime to fall so Russian base (the only one) in Mediterranean Sea would have to be closed. And Turkey is part of NATO.
Arab regimes did as well, because the "moderate" opposition chosen by the Western Countries were theirs, as ethnicities and ideology. The added value to fight a secular regime was too much to resist anyway.
Of course, if I can see it, so Putin, so he run to Assad's help, and after massive air support, Assad started to regain some territory.
I still do not understand why Turkey decided to shot down a Russian plane, but it didn't add the desired effect. No only Putin didn't retaliate but he pushed harder and the political landscape did shift in his favour (and Assad).
I am quite sure than some will come with explanations that he is in fact more isolated than ever, but Russia is now fully back on the political agenda after Crimea.
So, to answer your question, yes, our policy of Regime Change is responsible for the mess in Syria. Directly.
In ignoring the deep streams under the surface of the region, focusing only on the religious (and not completely grasped), ignoring the old war between Persians, Arabs, Kurds, diversity of societies and the political landscape provided by the mixture of all these elements, we are directly responsible for the mess in the region.

So it's our fault for causing the regime in Iran that's allied to one side of the Syrian mess, and our fault for causing another regime in Iraq which is allied to the opposing side of the Syrian mess. Notwithstanding the fact that these countries, or at least the regimes thereof, are strong and secure enough in and of themselves that they feel able to intervene in another country. Because, once we've ever stepped foot in one country, we are responsible for everything that happens from then on, without considering that they may in time recover enough from our ravages to be capable of independent decisionmaking. It's not the fault of the people who are currently acting in Syria, Iraq, Iran and whatnot, since they're incapable of acting by themselves, but are always and will forever be the blameless victims of western decisions. Nor is it the fault of the Saudis and Turks and whoever else have directly funded and continue to directly fund ISIS. It's the fault of the west, who sold someone somewhere a paperweight sometime ago, and allowed all this to happen.

It's this that I call bleeding heartism, the conviction that everything is our fault, and that we must flagellate ourselves to atone for our sins, except that is never enough since everything bad can be traced back to us. It's insulting both to the west that we're supposed to blame ourselves for all the ills in the world, and insulting to the natives to assume that they will never be capable of independent decisionmaking, since everything they do is the consequence of our decisions.

Kralizec

02-25-2016, 14:43

"So the mess in Syria is our fault because we toppled the Shah in Iran?" :laugh4: Partially, if you consider Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (allied with Assad).
The mess in Syria is due to a second invasion of Iraq without any reason. The very-ill conceived invasion, followed by a absolute disaster in the immediate post-war policy (like making 2 millions unemployed but armed former soldiers, firing of all the administration because they were previously in Saddam's party -as if they had a choice), the absolute ignorance of the local reality created a vacuum of power and corruption, even bigger than before, spreading poverty in the population, pulverisation of the Iraqi society and return to old structures (tribal and religious).

This bit of conventional wisdom is thrown around a lot, but it's not that simple. The Shia and Kurds wanted the dissolution of the army because the military officers were almost entirely drawn from Sunni tribes and had been instrumental in keeping the rest of the country under Saddams boot. If they had kept the army intact and civil war would still have broken out, people would be pointing fingers at that stupid idea.

All this created the destruction of the national identity, and this lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Army (that no reason to fight for a non-existent country) as show with the collapse of this army facing IS.
This collapse allowed the creation of a territory and the seizure of natural resources which will help IS to control more territory and population.

When there still was a US occupying force there had already been a large Sunni uprising by ISIS' predecessor, Al-Quada in Iraq. It was stamped out with the backing of moderate Sunni leaders. The fact of the matter is that Iraq's central government had an opportunity to reconcile with the Sunnis at this point, but the Shia dominated government blew it. The Sunni who had supported the counter-insurgency felt betrayed, paving the way for ISIS several years later.
In short: there's a 10 year gap in your chronology of events.

Because they are in confrontation with the Kurds, Turkey decided to trade with IS and to attack the Kurds in the back, having themselves a problem with Kurdish nationalism. They were inching for this, as a autonomous region in Iraq was not for their taste. And, at the same time, they were helping the Turkish populations in Syria with the long term aim of an annexation, when Assad Regime would have fall.

Iraqi Kurdistan is actually one of the few governments in the region that Turkey is friendly with (although not so much that they'd approve independence from the rest of Iraq). Turkey is their most important customer for oil, and the Iraqi Kurds don't have positive relations with either PKK or YPG/PYD.

USA and Europe turned a blind eye on this, as they wanted Assad regime to fall so Russian base (the only one) in Mediterranean Sea would have to be closed. And Turkey is part of NATO.
Arab regimes did as well, because the "moderate" opposition chosen by the Western Countries were theirs, as ethnicities and ideology. The added value to fight a secular regime was too much to resist anyway.
Of course, if I can see it, so Putin, so he run to Assad's help, and after massive air support, Assad started to regain some territory.
I still do not understand why Turkey decided to shot down a Russian plane, but it didn't add the desired effect. No only Putin didn't retaliate but he pushed harder and the political landscape did shift in his favour (and Assad).
I am quite sure than some will come with explanations that he is in fact more isolated than ever, but Russia is now fully back on the political agenda after Crimea.

Several western countries said in the early stages of the war that Assad should resign. Other than that, by all appearances NATO countries (Turkey excepted) have done very little to aid the Syrian rebels. They've bombed IS, supplied the Kurds who are not actively fighting Assad, even tried to raise a moderate fighting force to leave Assad alone and only fight ISIS (which was an abysmal failure)...everything about it suggests that they dislike Assad, but don't do anything meaningful to expedite his end. Partly to avoid confrontation with Russia, partly because the Syrian government proved more resiliant than people thought at first and lastly because it became increasingly obvious over the years that the insurgency is heavily dominated by islamists.

Also, Putin is a dick.

So, to answer your question, yes, our policy of Regime Change is responsible for the mess in Syria. Directly.
In ignoring the deep streams under the surface of the region, focusing only on the religious (and not completely grasped), ignoring the old war between Persians, Arabs, Kurds, diversity of societies and the political landscape provided by the mixture of all these elements, we are directly responsible for the mess in the region.

The mess in Iraq is a huge factor, so there's that. But beyond that, you're vastly overstating western (tm) responsibility for the Syrian conflict. CIA sponsored coups in that country are decades in the past. In my view the Syrian conflict is largely because of:
1) decades of Baathist rule which actively exploited ethnic tensions to justify its authority
2) meddling of neighbouring states, essentially this whole quagmire is a proxy war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on one hand and Iran on the other

Gilrandir

02-25-2016, 15:11

I see an epic yo mamma battle coming soon.

Relax, Elves don't battle Hobbits.

Don't blame me that your parents denied you a dictionary while growing up. You'd think they'd have one in school that you could have borrowed though? I suppose we should be happy that you can string a sentence together anyway :)

I am astounded to see how good can people be at insulting others in every other post. And almost as much astounded at the moderators' inveterate complacence.

Husar

02-25-2016, 15:18

So it's our fault for causing the regime in Iran that's allied to one side of the Syrian mess, and our fault for causing another regime in Iraq which is allied to the opposing side of the Syrian mess. Notwithstanding the fact that these countries, or at least the regimes thereof, are strong and secure enough in and of themselves that they feel able to intervene in another country. Because, once we've ever stepped foot in one country, we are responsible for everything that happens from then on, without considering that they may in time recover enough from our ravages to be capable of independent decisionmaking. It's not the fault of the people who are currently acting in Syria, Iraq, Iran and whatnot, since they're incapable of acting by themselves, but are always and will forever be the blameless victims of western decisions. Nor is it the fault of the Saudis and Turks and whoever else have directly funded and continue to directly fund ISIS. It's the fault of the west, who sold someone somewhere a paperweight sometime ago, and allowed all this to happen.

It's this that I call bleeding heartism, the conviction that everything is our fault, and that we must flagellate ourselves to atone for our sins, except that is never enough since everything bad can be traced back to us. It's insulting both to the west that we're supposed to blame ourselves for all the ills in the world, and insulting to the natives to assume that they will never be capable of independent decisionmaking, since everything they do is the consequence of our decisions.

What's this? Bleeding exaggeration?

Kralizec

02-25-2016, 15:32

I'm glad that you have come to the realization that different words mean different things.

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....

You know...it's so easy to get people to believe something...just write it as a headline story. Doesn't matter if the story is later shown to have no truth to it....it'll always be the thing that people remember. Just like the idea that refugees are responsible for the New Year attacks on women...you might want to update yourselves on that information as well....

Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

Yup, everyone knows those women have sexually molested themselves and then they threw the blame on the immigrants.

As I said...you might want to get up to speed with the evidence vis a vis those attacks and refugees..as opposed to knee-jerk headlines.

Snowhobbit

02-25-2016, 15:49

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....

Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

So did he hit his head halfway through? I would presume that if Wooly uses immigrants he means immigrants rather then refugees. Because, ya know, words.

AE Bravo

02-25-2016, 15:49

This bit of conventional wisdom is thrown around a lot, but it's not that simple. The Shia and Kurds wanted the dissolution of the army because the military officers were almost entirely drawn from Sunni tribes and had been instrumental in keeping the rest of the country under Saddams boot. If they had kept the army intact and civil war would still have broken out, people would be pointing fingers at that stupid idea.
It's because that bit of conventional wisdom is true. Saddam had Shia officials in his regime also and replacing the Sunni officers after his death didn't necessarily warrant de-Baathification of Iraqi army. The fact of the matter is that the US governor of Iraq disbanded a multiethnic military institution and handed over state coercive power to the Shia.

The fact of the matter is that Iraq's central government had an opportunity to reconcile with the Sunnis at this point, but the Shia dominated government blew it. The Sunni who had supported the counter-insurgency felt betrayed, paving the way for ISIS several years later.
In short: there's a 10 year gap in your chronology of events.
At which point they (Iraqi gov) were already a client of Iran. It sort of proves his point.

1) decades of Baathist rule which actively exploited ethnic tensions to justify its authority
2) meddling of neighbouring states, essentially this whole quagmire is a proxy war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on one hand and Iran on the other
1) This may be true about Baathist Iraq, but far from the truth in Syria's case.
2) Western countries discredited the country's sovereignty when they asked Assad to step down publicly and started funding foreign non-Syrian movements in the country after destroying Iraq. They opened the door for the neighboring countries to split it open.

Fragony

02-25-2016, 16:52

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

Insinuations are really getting annoying. I could say that I am not like that but you wouldn't believe me anyway. People who know me thankfully do.I should know better then taking offence but it's hard not to.

Kralizec

02-25-2016, 17:31

It's because that bit of conventional wisdom is true. Saddam had Shia officials in his regime also and replacing the Sunni officers after his death didn't necessarily warrant de-Baathification of Iraqi army. The fact of the matter is that the US governor of Iraq disbanded a multiethnic military institution and handed over state coercive power to the Shia.

My impression is that the important positions were mostly held by Sunnis, but I don't have any statistics at hand. Bremer himself has said (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/opinion/06bremer.html) that many Iraqis shared that perception, and furthermore that the army had effectively dissolved by itself after the invasion. It was not a question of "disbanding", but a question of wether to rebuild the old army (with its unpopular reputation) or to start from the ground up.
I'm not saying that the decision was wrong or right, just that it wasn't the ill-considered blunder people make it out to be.

At which point they (Iraqi gov) were already a client of Iran. It sort of proves his point.

If anything that would suggest Iranian meddling is the primary cause. Brenus' point was to establish a connection between the rise of ISIS and the decision to dismantle the army 10 years earlier, which I think is dubious.

1) This may be true about Baathist Iraq, but far from the truth in Syria's case.
2) Western countries discredited the country's sovereignty when they asked Assad to step down publicly and started funding foreign non-Syrian movements in the country after destroying Iraq. They opened the door for the neighboring countries to split it open.

1) it's a strategy that many authoritarian regimes employ, and from what I know about Syria it fits the description perfectly. Alawites have always been overrepresented since the Assad family took power and overwhelmingly support the regime because they think, with ample justification, that the survival of their community is linked to the regime. The same logic applies to other minorities, Kurds being a notable exception because they have their own brand of nationalism that is at odds with the government line.

2) the Syrian uprising was well under way before any NATO country sent assistance, let alone made calls for al-Assad to resign.

Greyblades

02-25-2016, 18:58

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

http://imaksim.com/wp-content/gallery/2012-agitprop/shout_dark.jpg

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 19:07

She must be. She's treating brown people almost like they're our equals.

Syrians aren't the equal of Europeans. At least not within the EU. EU citizens have a right to be in the EU because they are EU citizens. Syrians who aren't EU citizens don't have a right to be in the EU because they're not EU citizens. Other treaties and agreements may modify this, especially in individual cases, but that is generally the case. Under existing laws, AFAIK Syrians have a right to be in Turkey as refugees as Turkey is a neighbouring country. Once they go beyond the immediate neighbours, they're no longer refugees but migrants, and it's up to the country they enter whether or not they're welcome. The onus is not on the other country to host them.

Cue your argument that it's a human right to go wherever one wishes. In disregard of existing international laws.

AE Bravo

02-25-2016, 19:24

It was not a question of "disbanding", but a question of wether to rebuild the old army (with its unpopular reputation) or to start from the ground up.
I'm not saying that the decision was wrong or right, just that it wasn't the ill-considered blunder people make it out to be.
It was a drastic reform and a bad decision altogether. I don't doubt the lack of trust in the military the regime left behind, but we're talking a strong security apparatus down the drain in favor of sectarianism. There was secular Arab unity in Iraq, and just because it was hit hard after the invasion doesn't mean it's a good idea to dissolve it.

If anything that would suggest Iranian meddling is the primary cause. Brenus' point was to establish a connection between the rise of ISIS and the decision to dismantle the army 10 years earlier, which I think is dubious.
I think that's pretty clear, actually.

1) it's a strategy that many authoritarian regimes employ, and from what I know about Syria it fits the description perfectly. Alawites have always been overrepresented since the Assad family took power and overwhelmingly support the regime because they think, with ample justification, that the survival of their community is linked to the regime. The same logic applies to other minorities, Kurds being a notable exception because they have their own brand of nationalism that is at odds with the government line.
Assad regime is multiethnic and multi religious, the big players in Syria right now are not actually Syrian movements. It wouldn't have been in Assad's best interest to exploit sectarianism because that's the easiest way to break Baathism.

2) the Syrian uprising was well under way before any NATO country sent assistance, let alone made calls for al-Assad to resign.
It was controllable before everybody jumped in.

rajpoot

02-25-2016, 20:33

I'm bored and history allways interests me, could you explain what the idea of "white man's burden" caused that was bad?

I ask because of all the ideas of the 19th and early 20th century I was under the impression that one was one of the more harmless ideas. Condescending as hell, of course, but not harmful to my knowledge.

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

By lengthening our involvement in these countries, and thus making us responsible for everything bad that's been happening since, even decades after they've gained independence (with everything good being the hitherto restrained potential of the natives, of course). I raised the example of Hong Kong some time ago as an example of where Britain has governed a colony responsibly, and the appreciation of the native Chinese was dismissed, whilst everything that wasn't ideal was pinned as the fault of the British, even where the native Hong Kongers point to Beijing as the source. Trying to do good is pointless. We might as well embrace the universally agreed fact that we're evil, and look to our interests only.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

Thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don't mind could you clarify what you mean by "Doing stupider stuff"? Are you referring to bombing campaigns/interference in the Middle East? The current refugee situation?

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

Sarmatian

02-25-2016, 20:57

Insinuations are really getting annoying. I could say that I am not like that but you wouldn't believe me anyway. People who know me thankfully do.I should know better then taking offence but it's hard not to.

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

Syrians aren't the equal of Europeans. At least not within the EU. EU citizens have a right to be in the EU because they are EU citizens. Syrians who aren't EU citizens don't have a right to be in the EU because they're not EU citizens. Other treaties and agreements may modify this, especially in individual cases, but that is generally the case. Under existing laws, AFAIK Syrians have a right to be in Turkey as refugees as Turkey is a neighbouring country. Once they go beyond the immediate neighbours, they're no longer refugees but migrants, and it's up to the country they enter whether or not they're welcome. The onus is not on the other country to host them.

Cue your argument that it's a human right to go wherever one wishes. In disregard of existing international laws.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-25-2016, 21:01

You two are still arguing about this after 5 pages? Gaius was the first person to point out the difference between the words....

Then corrected someone else, who used the general term "immigrant" but from the context it's clear that wooly_mammoth didn't know about the distinction or the point that Gaius had been trying to make:

Thank you...that's all I've been trying to point out.

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 21:30

On the surface it's fairly harmless but ideas never get implemented like they're planned do they?
As far as my knowledge goes, the perceived responsibility caused the nations to deny peoples whom they considered savages the freedom to rule themselves. Regardless of how messy the alternative histories might have been had Europeans not embarked on their empire building trips, what did happen wasn't very pleasant either, at least not for those who were subjugated.

People who say the colonial rulers gave nothing good to their colonies are either blind or have deliberately closed their eyes. People who say that everything they did was for the betterment of their colonies are no better. The truth lies somewhere in between but nothing changes the fact that a group of people should be given the right to govern themselves unless they're doing something catastrophically self destructive (or harmful to others).

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

That is so not my argument.

In legal terms, you're perfectly right. EU doesn't have to do anything. My argument is for the most part moral, with the some practical aspects.

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

Fragony

02-25-2016, 21:32

Then stop saying people are literally insane if they believe immigrants (or at least a part of them) should be given refugee. Did it ever occur to you that she just might have thought this through and arrived at a different conclusion?

No, and I am in the good company of just about everybody in Europe. Thinking is not the same thing as feeling. She should have gotten a pet to pet. Even religiously insane narcists like petting pets, could have saved a lot of trouble if she could have channeled her condition on petting a pet. It's comforting to pet a pet.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

02-25-2016, 21:45

AE Bravo

02-25-2016, 21:49

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.
Than the people should stop indulging in hate speech and pressure their governments for once in their lives for screwing them over. The big guns running Europe lured the troubles of the world right onto their peoples' doorsteps and getting off scot-free at the expense of all parties. Western nations chose initial stupidity in handling foreign affairs and now they've forced themselves to plunge into further stupidity. I sincerely wish the best of luck but absolutely zero sympathy from me.

It is their responsibility now, for sure thanks to their governments.

Pannonian

02-25-2016, 22:00

Wow! Way to go on misrepresenting an argument. The point was made that a far more important regional interference was
the destruction of Iraq as a viable state...and then the overt support for an overthrow of the Syrian regime. But, by all means pretend that the last action by Western powers was forty years ago...

It's so much easier to blame those displaced (and powerless) than to look to your own regimes who are busy screwing you over, screwing them over and laughing all the way to the bank. Us 'native Europeans' are such a gullible bunch aren't we?

It goes to show that I was right to prefer an isolationist stance on all these occasions. Sod the moral arguments about the dictator of the week. Let the Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians have what they have without our interference. Maybe it's not too late to go the route I've been advocating for years. I want absolutely nothing to do with that region, and anyone from that region. I want to direct my ire at my government, and they can direct their ire at their government, and neither of us need to bother the other.

Sarmatian

02-25-2016, 22:08

See Brenus pointing to overthrowing the Shah as one of the root causes of the current mess in Syria. Apparently a native people having had their own choice of government for 40 years, developing their strength to the point that they're now asserting their power in their region, is still the helpless victim of our actions 40 years ago, and their current actions in conducting a proxy war with another regional power is chiefly our fault. Apparently the natives are incapable of independent thought or responsibility, as everything is down to us.

So, if a country A sponsors a violent coup in country B, how long should country A be held at least partly responsible for the damage in country B in your opinion? A month, a year, not at all?

Or, if country A helps arm, train and encourage rebels in country B, is there any responsibility at least during that process?

It's already been decided that the west, and especially the Anglo-Americans, are already morally wrong in any given situation, so why should we bother to change our minds? As nothing we do will ever change that inescapable fact, as shown by your dismissal of any credit that the locals ever give the British (it doesn't change the bigger picture etc). Not doing anything on our part doesn't make us wronger, as we're already morally wrong, but on the good side, it's cheaper for us.

This is getting really weird.

First, I'd like to point out that America is not in the EU. Then, I'd like to point out that Britain /= EU, it's just a small part of it.
After that, who said US and UK were always morally wrong? Then, why do you require the crowd adoration before you make a morally right choice? Morally right choices are usually unpopular.

Furthermore, if you really believe that people around the world should shout "All hail glorious Britain, as she took upon herself to civilize the world from completely selfless motives". I don't care how patriotic you are, if you believe British (or insert country) imperialism was not first and foremost about serving British (or insert country) interests, you really have a problem.

No, and I am in the good company of just about everybody in Europe. Thinking is not the same thing as feeling. She should have gotten a pet to pet. Even religiously insane narcists like petting pets, could have saved a lot of trouble if she could have channeled her condition on petting a pet.

Really? I'd say you aren't in the company of just about everybody on this board.

Fragony

02-25-2016, 22:21

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/02/hoe_is_het_nu_met.html#comments Schengen-zone since the childless muttis invitation

only pic counts, yeah that's official

I guess everybody still takes her serious, she can furiously scream or hollowed eyed mutter with a stupid smile on her face that she das schaft but this is what is actually real

Sarmatian

02-25-2016, 22:41

What is actually real?

Fragony

02-25-2016, 23:34

What is actually real?

All EU countries closing their borders because Germany is expecting 3.6 million migrants at about 2020. That plum workhorse expects others to fix it for her but nobody wants to, and is going to, what you see there on that map is countries that are back to controlling their borders, these millions are just about all on the shoulders of the Germans, who can't house them, can't provide anything but basic needs, and most of all can't provide them with any prospects. Promises have been made that can't reasonably be kept and nobody is going to like that. I assume you mean well, so do I, what kind of life are these people going to have? They would be better off in the place they came from, get away for a while where it's safe and go back and rebuild.

Brenus

02-25-2016, 23:51

“So it's our fault”: It is the result of our politic. So, whose fault is it? We impose the leaders we choose on them; we help these strong men (dictators only they are on the other side) in selling them weapons, training of their secret police, and help them in repressing any leftist/unionists opposition, leaving the field open to the Priests. So who is responsible for the choice to help the Shah, Mubarak and others?

“our fault for causing another regime in Iraq” Yes. It was our choice to divide Iraq following the religious fracture. We ignore the deadly struggle between Shia and Sunnites. We ignore the fact that Persia and Arabs are fighting for centuries. We impose the structures of the new Iraqi government (Constitution), so don’t blame the Iraqi for the result of your choices, as far as I remember, their opinion was not requested.

“It's not the fault of the people who are currently acting in Syria, Iraq, Iran and whatnot, since they're incapable of acting by themselves, but are always and will forever be the blameless victims of western decisions. Nor is it the fault of the Saudis and Turks and whoever else have directly funded and continue to directly fund ISIS.” You should re-read what I wrote. I think you got it wrong.

“In short: there's a 10 year gap in your chronology of events.” In short, I summarized it. The problem is the representation of the USA/UK victory was enough humiliating to brake a national pride by itself. You can’t ask to defend a country when you destroy the country. The insurrection could have been controlled if the politico-religious-ethnic background better understood, or, perhaps, just not ignored. I don’t believe the US and UK didn’t have enough specialists who could and probably did warn them about the situation.

“Iraqi Kurdistan is actually one of the few governments in the region that Turkey is friendly” You having a laugh! I was in Iraq when the Turkish bombers attacked the valley just of the other side or the mountain and helped in evacuating the injured…

“1) decades of Baathist rule which actively exploited ethnic tensions to justify its authority
2) meddling of neighbouring states, essentially this whole quagmire is a proxy war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia on one hand and Iran on the other” I agree, and I will had food shortage due to climate changes so internal migrations Assad’s regime couldn’t help, growing unemployment, social crisis…

“Brenus' point was to establish a connection between the rise of ISIS and the decision to dismantle the army 10 years earlier” No, it was not my point. My point was and is, and the army being only one process, the dismantling of Iraq as country (administration, privatisation of the natural resources, private mercenaries, etc) de facto broke the little national unity of the country. The rise of ISIL (ISIS) was favoured by it.

Husar

02-26-2016, 02:24

All EU countries closing their borders because Germany is expecting 3.6 million migrants at about 2020. That plum workhorse expects others to fix it for her but nobody wants to, and is going to, what you see there on that map is countries that are back to controlling their borders, these millions are just about all on the shoulders of the Germans, who can't house them, can't provide anything but basic needs, and most of all can't provide them with any prospects. Promises have been made that can't reasonably be kept and nobody is going to like that. I assume you mean well, so do I, what kind of life are these people going to have? They would be better off in the place they came from, get away for a while where it's safe and go back and rebuild.

This is not entirely wrong what you say here. Given that people are housed in sports places and other housing that was barely scraped together, it is not entirely unreasonable to say that without a major effort and investment, we cannot take many more people without having them freeze in the cold in winter. Not to forget that housing prices and rent were going up due to scarcity even before all these people came, definitely an issue the government needs to address. What we could do is look for the companies and investors who wanted more influx of workers or have in the past released German workers to hire immigrants in unusually large numbers (yes, this actually does happen sometimes) and then we could just have the government levy and extra-tax from them to have a lot of housing built. You want something, you pay for it. It's just too bad that most of their money is probably stowed away in tax-havens.

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 07:31

I might be completely wrong here but IMO inviting hundreds of thousands of outsiders to stay in Europe all at once, people who come from a vastly different culture and upbringing and many of whom perhaps don't even like Europe and might even consider the actions of the Western nations the root of their misfortunes (and might harbour dangerous extremists amongst them), is stupid.

Well, the issue is two-fold. On the one hand we have a lot of people living more or less miserable lives, aka push factors. On the other we have statements from politicians as well as just general a generous system for refugees (aka pull factors). It is not reasonable to blame the result on only one of the two factors, and I am not sure if there are more dangerous extremists among the influx than is present domestically in those groups (see French suburbs or Malmö for instance). Of course if the people who have come are not integrated, they will further feed the issue and cause more problems.

Sarmatian

02-26-2016, 08:00

All EU countries closing their borders because Germany is expecting 3.6 million migrants at about 2020. That plum workhorse expects others to fix it for her but nobody wants to, and is going to, what you see there on that map is countries that are back to controlling their borders, these millions are just about all on the shoulders of the Germans, who can't house them, can't provide anything but basic needs, and most of all can't provide them with any prospects. Promises have been made that can't reasonably be kept and nobody is going to like that. I assume you mean well, so do I, what kind of life are these people going to have? They would be better off in the place they came from, get away for a while where it's safe and go back and rebuild.

3.6 million migrants by 2020 is about 0.7 million per year. The lowest number of migrants that came to Germany in the last cca. 25 years is 0.66 million in 2006. The highest number was more than 1.5 million in 1992, while the average is over 1 million per year.

Lebanon is housing 1.2 million refugees at the moment. For comparison sake, Lebanon is 35 times smaller than Germany in area and 18 times smaller than Germany in population.

The fact that countries are manning the borders doesn't mean they're closed and refugees move even though that map shows red lines.

The doom and gloom theories are quite far fetched, and like in most cases, whoever wrote that article is too stupid or lazy (or has an agenda) to put the numbers they see into proper context.

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 08:05

3.6 million migrants by 2020 is about 0.7 million per year. The lowest number of migrants that came to Germany in the last cca. 25 years is 0.66 million in 2006. The highest number was more than 1.5 million in 1992, while the average is over 1 million per year.

Lebanon is housing 1.2 million refugees at the moment. For comparison sake, Lebanon is 35 times smaller than Germany in area and 18 times smaller than Germany in population.

The fact that countries are manning the borders doesn't mean they're closed and refugees move even though that map shows red lines.

The doom and gloom theories are quite far fetched, and like in most cases, whoever wrote that article is too stupid or lazy (or has an agenda) to put the numbers they see into proper context.

For the sake of intellectual honesty, is there any difference in how Lebanon and Germany treat their refugees? How many refugee tent towns are there in Germany? How many of those refugees in Lebanon have a work permit and a path to citizenship? How much does a refugee cost in Lebanon (for upkeep) as compared to how much the German government spends? And can we really compare the movement of EU citizens to the refugee stream?

Sarmatian

02-26-2016, 08:30

For the sake of intellectual honesty, is there any difference in how Lebanon and Germany treat their refugees? How many refugee tent towns are there in Germany? How many of those refugees in Lebanon have a work permit and a path to citizenship? How much does a refugee cost in Lebanon (for upkeep) as compared to how much the German government spends? And can we really compare the movement of EU citizens to the refugee stream?

The point being? Germany spends more on refugees?

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 08:40

The point being? Germany spends more on refugees?

The point being that we cannot compare numbers without comparing costs and obligations, nor can we compare a net-cost with a net-gain group. There is something behind those numbers, you cannot compare apples and oranges like you are doing. You did not address the last question.

Sarmatian

02-26-2016, 08:49

The point being that we cannot compare numbers without comparing costs and obligations, nor can we compare a net-cost with a net-gain group. There is something behind those numbers, you cannot compare apples and oranges like you are doing. You did not address the last question.

I wasn't saying it's a walk in the park, I was just pointing out that Germany and EU on the whole won't crumble under the pressure, not even close.

As for the answer to the last question, you can pick one of two:

1) Not all migrants before were EU citizens, especially as many were coming before the legal concept of EU citizen existed.
2) Right wingers were using the same arguments for eastern European immigrants (not enough room, not enough jobs, uncivilized, prone to committing violent crimes, uneducated...)

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 09:01

I wasn't saying it's a walk in the park, I was just pointing out that Germany and EU on the whole won't crumble under the pressure, not even close.

As for the answer to the last question, you can pick one of two:

1) Not all migrants before were EU citizens, especially as many were coming before the legal concept of EU citizen existed.
2) Right wingers were using the same arguments for eastern European immigrants (not enough room, not enough jobs, uncivilized, prone to committing violent crimes, uneducated...)

The EU and free movement certainly existed in 2006 as you mention. It goes as far back as the 60's and even further back if you go to the origins of it.
Again, it would be nice if you hinged your arguments on things like numbers and facts. What are the employment numbers of the two respective groups? Which group is a net-cost and a net-benefit? What is the extent of criminality within each group? Does Poland practice Tarrasque or however that is spelled, but they keep it secret from the rest of us?

I would not be surprised to know that you've not been keeping up on news in Sweden, we are rather small and far away. Are you aware of why we "closed" our borders?

Pannonian

02-26-2016, 10:37

I wasn't saying it's a walk in the park, I was just pointing out that Germany and EU on the whole won't crumble under the pressure, not even close.

As for the answer to the last question, you can pick one of two:

1) Not all migrants before were EU citizens, especially as many were coming before the legal concept of EU citizen existed.
2) Right wingers were using the same arguments for eastern European immigrants (not enough room, not enough jobs, uncivilized, prone to committing violent crimes, uneducated...)

Unlike eastern Europeans, whom I've never had any problems with, Muslims in Britain (and AFAIK in other countries too) are prone to producing traitors apt to kill other Britons in following their religion. With a fair bit of support from those who aren't actively doing that. Even the Irish republicans didn't glory as much in killing civilians as these bastards. I don't want any more Islamists here.

Slyspy

02-26-2016, 13:23

Why help? Because they are here (or are on their way) and because it is more palatable than machine gunning them in the boats and at the fences. Next question.

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 13:57

Why help? Because they are here (or are on their way) and because it is more palatable than machine gunning them in the boats and at the fences. Next question.

Why can't we just put them in gas chambers instead? Surely that is cheaper?

Or you know, there could be other solutions that maintain human dignity while not drowning our systems and exposing the population to something that they do not want.

Sarmatian

02-26-2016, 15:27

The EU and free movement certainly existed in 2006 as you mention. It goes as far back as the 60's and even further back if you go to the origins of it.

Not in this form in 1992, and also EU was much smaller, and that was the record year for immigration in Germany, more than 1.5 million.

Again, it would be nice if you hinged your arguments on things like numbers and facts. What are the employment numbers of the two respective groups? Which group is a net-cost and a net-benefit?

It is relatively hard to find complete data. Most works on the subject have to make a lot of assumptions, but generally the consensus is that immigrants are a net gain, especially in the long run, over 50 years or so.
For instance, a study from Oxford university found that if the current migration levels remain stable (+140k per year), public debt in UK would be at about a 100% of the GDP in 2063. If there is a higher level of immigration(+260k per year) the public debt would be 75% of the GDP in 2063. With zero net immigration, public debt would grow to 150% of the GDP in 2063.

All those findings need to be taken with a pinch of salt, indeed, but since there is no definitive proof either way, the best we currently have are educated guesses, and they suggest that immigrants on the whole are a net gain, especially in stable, organized countries.

What is the extent of criminality within each group? Does Poland practice Tarrasque or however that is spelled, but they keep it secret from the rest of us?

I tend to connect criminal activity more with poverty and lack of options in life in general than with culture or religion. Trying to find relevant data is hard because googling "crime" and "immigrants" in any way shape or form tends to bring back thousand of anti-immigrants blogs and activist site which bear no relation with reality.

I would not be surprised to know that you've not been keeping up on news in Sweden, we are rather small and far away. Are you aware of why we "closed" our borders?

No. Why did you?

Unlike eastern Europeans, whom I've never had any problems with, Muslims in Britain (and AFAIK in other countries too) are prone to producing traitors apt to kill other Britons in following their religion. With a fair bit of support from those who aren't actively doing that. Even the Irish republicans didn't glory as much in killing civilians as these bastards. I don't want any more Islamists here.

That was you. Don't tell me you weren't aware of the right wing narrative of Poles and other eastern Europeans stealing UK jobs, or just being lazy ***** who collect benefits. Studies found that they were better educated than Brits, contributed more fiscally, less likely to be unemployed and receive benefits and so on...

For the other part, I completely understand why are you so revolted, but answer me this, please - if a Muslim Briton kills other Britons, that is betrayal. What's the word you use when a non-Muslim Briton kills other Britons?

Pannonian

02-26-2016, 15:46

For the other part, I completely understand why are you so revolted, but answer me this, please - if a Muslim Briton kills other Britons, that is betrayal. What's the word you use when a non-Muslim Briton kills other Britons?

I've not seen many cases of non-Muslim Britons killing other Britons in pursuit of an ideology, with an established community supporting them in their actions. Our society is well set up to deal with murderers and other individuals who kill with individual motives. It's not so well set up to deal with people who kill with ideological motives with the aim of targeting the softest targets possible. Heck, even the Irish republicans had qualms about targeting civilians, and they always kept up contacts and (mostly) kept their word on agreements.

Sarmatian

02-26-2016, 16:04

I've not seen many cases of non-Muslim Britons killing other Britons in pursuit of an ideology, with an established community supporting them in their actions. Our society is well set up to deal with murderers and other individuals who kill with individual motives. It's not so well set up to deal with people who kill with ideological motives with the aim of targeting the softest targets possible. Heck, even the Irish republicans had qualms about targeting civilians, and they always kept up contacts and (mostly) kept their word on agreements.

No instances of Irishmen born in England who may have helped in some way, shape or form, IRA in committing some crimes?

Snowhobbit

02-26-2016, 16:21

Not in this form in 1992, and also EU was much smaller, and that was the record year for immigration in Germany, more than 1.5 million.

It is relatively hard to find complete data. Most works on the subject have to make a lot of assumptions, but generally the consensus is that immigrants are a net gain, especially in the long run, over 50 years or so.
For instance, a study from Oxford university found that if the current migration levels remain stable (+140k per year), public debt in UK would be at about a 100% of the GDP in 2063. If there is a higher level of immigration(+260k per year) the public debt would be 75% of the GDP in 2063. With zero net immigration, public debt would grow to 150% of the GDP in 2063.

All those findings need to be taken with a pinch of salt, indeed, but since there is no definitive proof either way, the best we currently have are educated guesses, and they suggest that immigrants on the whole are a net gain, especially in stable, organized countries.

I tend to connect criminal activity more with poverty and lack of options in life in general than with culture or religion. Trying to find relevant data is hard because googling "crime" and "immigrants" in any way shape or form tends to bring back thousand of anti-immigrants blogs and activist site which bear no relation with reality.

No. Why did you?

That was you. Don't tell me you weren't aware of the right wing narrative of Poles and other eastern Europeans stealing UK jobs, or just being lazy ***** who collect benefits. Studies found that they were better educated than Brits, contributed more fiscally, less likely to be unemployed and receive benefits and so on...

For the other part, I completely understand why are you so revolted, but answer me this, please - if a Muslim Briton kills other Britons, that is betrayal. What's the word you use when a non-Muslim Briton kills other Britons?

In the form that Germany is in it and that free movement is allowed for all workers, it does indeed date back to the 60's. Of course it does not exist within the EU framework before 1992, since the EU was not founded until 1992. But we are not discussing EU but free movement of people.

There is most certainly a whole lot of research on employment numbers of the two respective groups, I would suggest you look harder (for example at OECD). From these numbers, and the numbers of people on welfare and the cost of that, we can extrapolate whether people are a cost or a gain. The study that you refer to clumps all migration into one. There is a huge difference between a German engineer and a Polish plumber, let alone between a Syrian dentist and a Syrian farmer, in terms of employability, capacity to support oneself and generate taxes, integration into society, criminality and other costs, usage of welfare etc. To clump all into one is highly disingenuous. For reference of how to not do the reports, you can look up Sandviken immigration report. I would reccommend among others Tino Sanadaji for a hard economic science look at the thing.

Of course Googling crime+immigrants will turn up a whole lot of crap, that is the nature of the beast. In 2005 I think it was (before the government decided it was not a good idea to show a public account of this figure) BRÅ (Crime prevention council) produced a report on the over representation of immigrants compared to natives in crime, dividing it up by crime categories for native, first and second generation immigrants, as well as immigrants by region as a whole. These numbers were adjusted for socio-economic factors, but all the same the over representation among crimes, especially the really bad ones like aggravated assault, murder and rape was quite large. Today we no longer get public numbers on this, but Swedes are now a minority in jail doing hard time. But yeah there are people screaming bloody murder for no reason on the internet and certain groups are painted bad as a whole. I would like to add that even with the massive over representation something like 98% of immigrants are not criminals.

I'm glad you asked. We were looking at an influx of about half a million per year minimum. The reception systems were unable to handle it and we were having people sleeping in tents in winter (heated mind you), near a thousand people were housed in a convention hall where they had all of 12 bathrooms to share. We have rampant crimes being committed in the centers, a large spike in public sexual assault. Our swimming pools have become havens for sexual crimes and I would question the sanity of anyone bringing their female children or even adult female relatives or friends to such an establishment. We have completely failed at checking the age of so called unaccompanied "minors" (not that all of them are not minors, but possibly a majority of them are adults). We've had cases of children being raped by the pretend children in the homes. We've had a man of 40+ years old being treated as a child. We've had a female worker in one of the homes be stabbed to death as she intervened to save the life of a probably actually child being assaulted to a "child". We spend more on these children than the entire Afghan state budget, including foreign aid. Our social services are unable to meet the demands that the law places upon them and have started reporting themselves for this. We are lacking about 1 million homes nationwide, today. The absolute majority of the people who have arrived are educated for about 5 years on average, in a highly developed and demanding economy where we have taxed the smaller easier jobs out of the market decades ago. We are reaching levels where the housing standard might return to what it was 100 years ago (no internal plumbing or heating), in order to provide a roof over the head for people.

Oh and we are likely going to have to send about 80,000 people home due to their application being denied next year. Last year police had the task to send about 5,000 home but only managed 4,000. In smaller cities police (police nation-wide are used to enforce the border controls) lack the resources to investigate murder and attempted murder. We have street gangs of North African "children" who basically get to act outside the law, openly engage in drug trade less than a kilometer from parliament and frequently gang-raping women. Police are unable to prosecute them due to their claimed age, and when they do get caught they are often out within a week, having escaped from the foster home in which they were placed.

I think that about sums it up, but someone can correct me if I've missed something.