View Full Version : IMMIGRATION thread
Pages :
[
1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is getting unmanagable. Not only is the meditarian sea the biggest graveyard in the world by now, thousands must have drowned by now, and the ones who make it are becomming a serious problem for France and England. Truckdrivers don't want to go to Callais anymore, the trains often get hours of delay because the tunnel gets swarmed. Any ideas. The most humanitarian solution would be to drag the ships back just close enough to the african coast, and load up on cheap but safe boats. Something has to be done.
Disclaimer: this is a merging of several threads. Title has nothing to do with any views in the OP.
Oh, don't forget the ones coming by foot...
Solutions? Well, stop to bomb countries you don't like under various pretexts would be a good start. Note there are more "Muslims" willing to leave the Muslim very State of Levant than to go to live there. Stop created "independent" unsustainable states would be another solution (i.e Republic of Kosovo). Another option would be to stop free-market ideology which create massive employment and destroy communities.
EU imposes to neighbours trade agreements just doing this. So the unemployed EU created decide logically they don't want to starve, refusing to die in silence and dignity, the cowards. They "choose" to risk their life, to face potential death to go in hostile countries to seek potential better life. How can you stop that? STOP FREAKING HEADLESS TRADE POLICIES, and start to think human...
I know, too much to ask...
A radical thought of my own, and not one that is going to please everybody, but maybe MORE capitalism would be the best. That wold absolutily take the power from their governments of course. But there would be enough to eat, enough to trade, and of course enough to exploit China also does it. Just read that another one washed up here, that's a little tragedy, big tragedy was yesterday, hundreds drowned. I wish I could say that I give a crap but I dont't and I don't like that.
The fleeing people are just a symptom. We could rescue people in the Mediterranean and grant them citizenship till there was no room left, and people would still try to cross it as long as the causes are still active.
Which is to say that the war in Syria needs to be stopped in a way that it does not flare up again 20 years later (hint to the fans of arab dictators), the Eritrean leadership (or at least its policies) need to be changed and Somalia needs to be fixed. Do these things, and much of the migrant masses would already have disappeared.
wooly_mammoth
08-08-2015, 11:46
Which is to say that the war in Syria needs to be stopped in a way that it does not flare up again 20 years later (hint to the fans of arab dictators)
Not sure I understood what you meant there. To my knowledge, most if not all the wars going from Lybia to Syria and beyond are solely due to american interference (and NATO as a follow-up of that). I have no idea why instead of seeing to fix the problems in their own country (and your favorite deity be praised, they have a motherload of those) they find it more useful to meddle into the afairs of others. Give me an example of one place where they interfered and it did not end up in a bigger disaster than it previously was. I'm having a hard time thinking of one.
The fleeing people are just a symptom. We could rescue people in the Mediterranean and grant them citizenship till there was no room left, and people would still try to cross it as long as the causes are still active.
There already isn't any room left in the Netherlands at least, the EU demands that they het housing in six months, immigrants take the place of people who have been waiting for 6 years or more. And now the EU wants us to take in even more, there are no houses, there is no room. England gets te worst deal though, or rather the Brittish. They all want to go to England because the wellfare is most generous there
"They all want to go to England because the wellfare is most generous there" Not really, but it is irrelevant as it is what the English and the immigrants think.
To my knowledge, most if not all the wars going from Lybia to Syria and beyond are solely due to american interference
The wars in Libya and Syria were caused by unpopular dictator families who had placed themselves in power many decades ago. But not that many people are freeing from Libya, they are fleeing through it, like Eritreans. But that didn't have to be a big problem for us; the European governments could just have enforced strict policies and returned the vast majority of the migrants to where they came from - the problem is that they don't.
Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.
Give me an example of one place where they interfered and it did not end up in a bigger disaster than it previously was. I'm having a hard time thinking of one.
South Korea, Japan, Western Europe.
Gilrandir
08-08-2015, 13:36
South Korea, Japan, Western Europe.
...and the Moon!!!
Montmorency
08-08-2015, 15:07
Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.
You don't see the staggering irony in this comment?
wooly_mammoth
08-08-2015, 15:12
South Korea, Japan, Western Europe.
Point taken. I was thinking in a post cold war time frame.
Greyblades
08-08-2015, 15:33
There was also that time when they beat the shit out of North African pirates.
You don't see the staggering irony in this comment?
Nope. Explain yourself.
Sure but there are hundreds of people that willl drown if we go VOC on them, not a sight I would like to see, surily there is a better solution. It might be childish but if eurocrats insist on not dealing with this they should also take the burden. There is a building in Strasbourgh that isn't really needed.
Give me an example of one place where they interfered and it did not end up in a bigger disaster than it previously was. I'm having a hard time thinking of one.
Vietnam.
Montmorency
08-08-2015, 22:48
Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.
How about this - 'blaming problems in Europe on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat'?
You seem to entertain an idea of national entities as somehow existing in separate spheres of reality from each other, yet go on to elaborate by contradicting yourself.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-08-2015, 22:57
Vietnam.
Well, the Vietnam War also destabilised Cambodia and Thailand.
Well, the Vietnam War also destabilised Cambodia and Thailand.
But those weren't the places where they interfered. ~;)
"There is a building in Strasbourgh that isn't really needed." Needed for political reason. It was (is?) the price to pay for starting the European Movement.
Now, I am more in the mood to scrap all this EU free-market dictatorship and start again if possible, but first we have to take French traitor governments down. Never see in French History governments giving so easily sovereign powers, industries and assets to foreign powers so fast.
Pétain comes to mind, but at least he had the excuse of German invasion (he even gave things the German invaders didn't ask for, as racial laws).
InsaneApache
08-09-2015, 09:23
The Royal Navy is acting as a taxi service across the Med. dropping off migrants in Italy who then turn up at Calais a few days later. Madness.
My view?
Blockade the north African coast and stop any boats carrying migrants. Tow them back to the coast, dis-embark them and then sink the boat. Harsh? Yes. In the long term though, the message will get across and ultimately save lives.
As for those in Calais, well international law says that 'refugees' should claim asylum in the first safe country they enter, so I say give them French citizenship. If only to piss off the French! :creep:
How about this - 'blaming problems in Europe on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat'?
Does who? I just said European politicians were one of the biggest factors for the problems faced in Europe.
You seem to entertain an idea of national entities as somehow existing in separate spheres of reality from each other, yet go on to elaborate by contradicting yourself.
Nope, not separate spheres. Outside influence has to be pretty heavy and pretty negative before it becomes unrealistic for local inhabitants to be able to build or sustain a functioning country.
"so I say give them French citizenship. If only to piss off the French! " I would say give the Brits a vanguard taste of what wait for them when they will be about of EU. Say bon voyage to the migrants, hope you had good time, check they bought the ticket, and see your visa problem with the Brits. THIS will piss off the British.:yes:
Gilrandir
08-09-2015, 15:04
Now, I am more in the mood to scrap all this EU free-market dictatorship and start again if possible, but first we have to take French traitor governments down. Never see in French History governments giving so easily sovereign powers, industries and assets to foreign powers so fast.
This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything.
As for those in Calais, well international law says that 'refugees' should claim asylum in the first safe country they enter, so I say give them French citizenship.
You gotta be kidding. France a safe country? Charlie Hebdo staff are laughing their butts out up above.
"Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"?" Pétain was not a traitor?
"The USSR story didn't teach them anything." Apparently not as they created EU following the same way. Look, you just had Natalie Jaresko, now your Finance Minister, got a Ukrainian National Identity the day before to get the job. Before she was USanian and worked for the State Department.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/natalie-jaresko-ukraines-new-finance-minister-was-born-and-raised-in-chicago-2015-3?r=US&IR=T
I think we should bomb all the bad people in Africa to make the problem(s) go away!
Montmorency
08-09-2015, 18:46
Outside influence has to be pretty heavy and pretty negative before it becomes unrealistic for local inhabitants to be able to build or sustain a functioning country.
Why do you think that? You're just making the same mistake of dichotimization.
You're just making the same mistake of dichotimization.
No, don't know why you would interpret it that way. It's a scale.
If it is realistic for the inhabitants to create a functioning country, then they are failing as long as they aren't actually doing that. Blaming outside forces for their lack of success is then a distraction since they could have succeeded, anyway.
No, don't know why you would interpret it that way. It's a scale.
If it is realistic for the inhabitants to create a functioning country, then they are failing as long as they aren't actually doing that. Blaming outside forces for their lack of success is then a distraction since they could have succeeded, anyway.
Blaming Montmorency for not understanding your argument is a distraction since you could have made a good argument anyway.
Did you consider that a lot of regions in Africa etc. had functioning societies before colonialization?
And that e.g. former French colonies are still under a "pretty heavy" influence from France?
In other countries the local economies are destroyed by cheap imports from western mass production that they cannot compete without without buying really expensive technology from the west for which they have to take really heavy loans from the west and so on.
And then fisher boats take away all their fish because hey, we gotta look out for our profits.
But of course this is the fault of Africans for not having invented the nuke first and not having nuked the Europeans away when it was still socially acceptable.
Blaming Montmorency for not understanding your argument is a distraction since you could have made a good argument anyway.
Indeed, it's just that it doesn't affect my life particularly negatively if Montmorency does not follow my line of argument; so I lack the incentive to put a great deal of effort into it.
Did you consider that a lot of regions in Africa etc. had functioning societies before colonialization?
So?
And that e.g. former French colonies are still under a "pretty heavy" influence from France?
In other countries the local economies are destroyed by cheap imports from western mass production that they cannot compete without without buying really expensive technology from the west for which they have to take really heavy loans from the west and so on.
And then fisher boats take away all their fish because hey, we gotta look out for our profits.
But of course this is the fault of Africans for not having invented the nuke first and not having nuked the Europeans away when it was still socially acceptable.
The governments have armies. If there are foreign agents you think are exploiting your country, expel them - by force if necessary. Put policies in place to become as self-reliant as possible and import only from friendly countries as far as possible. Unite with other countries with similar problems in order to force opposing elements to take you even more seriously.
But I expect you are retelling common myths, anyway - or can you produce evidence that this is the fundamental cause for poverty in all or most poor African countries?
So?
Might be a strong hint that the current problems could be related to such an outside factor. Unless you want to claim that the effects of 100-400 years of foreign meddling and rule should have completely disappeared after a few months.
The governments have armies. If there are foreign agents you think are exploiting your country, expel them - by force if necessary. Put policies in place to become as self-reliant as possible and import only from friendly countries as far as possible. Unite with other countries with similar problems in order to force opposing elements to take you even more seriously.
Why don't you just say "Everybody be reasonable and nice already!"
http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/
How are they going to pay their armies if France shuts off their access to their money?
A lot of these armies are also not too well trained, have low morela and/or are busy fighting some warlords.
Add to that that the government may be corrupt but is not easily changed by an unarmed population, the rebels are hardly better or even much worse, food is really hard to access (often on purpose as hunger is used as a weapon) and then some Euroweenie comes and says "man up, be reasonable"....yeah, because it's easy to say from a comfy chair...
But I expect you are retelling common myths, anyway - or can you produce evidence that this is the fundamental cause for poverty in all or most poor African countries?
Can you prove that it is the fault of the refugees? Can you prove that the countries are democratic enough that the citizens are to blame? And if not, can you prove that the citizens are not trying hard enough to change this?
Might be a strong hint that the current problems could be related to such an outside factor.
Or that the current rulers are incompetent.
Why don't you just say "Everybody be reasonable and nice already!"
They are in successful countries. That is: they don't do corruption and take up arms against the state for spurious reasons.
How are they going to pay their armies if France shuts off their access to their money?
Solution: don't send money to France, keep it yourself and pay the military. That's my personal method, too; I never send any money to France.
A lot of these armies are also not too well trained, have low morela and/or are busy fighting some warlords.
Driving out foreigners tends to be easy peasy. Just turning the locals against them goes a long way.
Add to that that the government may be corrupt but is not easily changed by an unarmed population, the rebels are hardly better or even much worse, food is really hard to access (often on purpose as hunger is used as a weapon) and then some Euroweenie comes and says "man up, be reasonable"....yeah, because it's easy to say from a comfy chair...
And now you just listed up a lot of internal elements causing problems. That takes us back to where I started off.
Can you prove that it is the fault of the refugees? Can you prove that the countries are democratic enough that the citizens are to blame? And if not, can you prove that the citizens are not trying hard enough to change this?
I am not blocking their citizenship because they haven't done enough, but because letting them have it is not going to fix much, and may destabilise Europe itself. What I would instead like European politicians to do, is to make an intelligent effort on contributing to fix these countries. If France is as evil as you claim, then telling France to stop being evil would be a good start.
Montmorency
08-10-2015, 00:11
Viking, I don't think you understand what I'm commenting about in your posts.
If it is realistic for the inhabitants to create a functioning country, then they are failing as long as they aren't actually doing that. Blaming outside forces for their lack of success is then a distraction since they could have succeeded, anyway.
This statement is so vague as to have no meaning. I'll take the liberty of putting a better-specified argument in your mouth, which is just that African countries from which refugees/illegal immigrants into Europe commonly emigrate have some endemic ecological, structural, and cultural problems that contribute to the pressure to emigrate (e.g. violence, corruption, shortage of work, food, other resources, etc.); it is not a complete explanation toward accounting for these problems to say that international political or economic interaction is what simply contributes toward or perpetuates these problems or their conditions.
Further taking into account that everything interacts and covaries, we see that the world situation is dynamic and no institution or people anywhere act or exist in a vacuum distinct from others such that some parties could unilaterally shift certain policies to produce an immediate and dramatic effect on the aforementioned issues (besides, you know, OWG :wink:).
Put that way, I would agree, since it applies as well to Western countries and whatever problems you may identify in them.
Or that the current rulers are incompetent.
Very much possible, and why is that so?
They are in successful countries. That is: they don't do corruption and take up arms against the state for spurious reasons.
Is it reasonable to stick to and even propagate a system that directly aids or at least profits from the instability of other societies and then wonder why these other societies are doing so bad?
Solution: don't send money to France, keep it yourself and pay the military. That's my personal method, too; I never send any money to France.
Did you even read the article? How many of the refugees sent their money to France?
Driving out foreigners tends to be easy peasy. Just turning the locals against them goes a long way.
Yes, North Korea is only doing so well because it drove out all the foreigners.
And now you just listed up a lot of internal elements causing problems. That takes us back to where I started off.
You keep ignoring that a lot of these internal problems only came to be through external influences.
I am not blocking their citizenship because they haven't done enough, but because letting them have it is not going to fix much, and may destabilise Europe itself. What I would instead like European politicians to do, is to make an intelligent effort on contributing to fix these countries. If France is as evil as you claim, then telling France to stop being evil would be a good start.
And why then do you seemingly blame the refugees for the problems in their countries?
I agree that Europe cannot take all the refugees but you sounded as though you were saying:
"Well, it's got nothing to do with us, let's seal our borders and wait until they fix their own mess."
If that was a misunderstanding then please elaborate.
Gilrandir
08-10-2015, 06:23
"Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"?" Pétain was not a traitor?
Perhaps he was. But you apply the same logics that was used in the USSR after WWII: if you stayed on the occupied (by Germans) territory you are a traitor; if you worked on the territories occupied by Germans you are a traitor; if you were a soldier and surrendered you are a traitor. Such "traitors" were then put into GULAG camps. Evidently, Marxists enjoy dividing the world into black and white.
But the first part of your comment on the hateful government referred not to Petain, but to the current French one. Having governments down is another thing Marxists enjoy. Why are you then so negative about Ukrainians throwing down their government? This is exactly in your line of modus operandi.
"The USSR story didn't teach them anything." Apparently not as they created EU following the same way.
Whatever you say. I hope you can support your claim by examples of:
1. Freedom of speech stifled in the EU.
2. Religion almost banned, churches destroyed and priests imprisoned in the EU.
3. One party ruling the EU.
4. One ideology granted constitutional supremacy in the EU.
5. Accomodation given out free by the state to all citizens of the EU.
6. Education and medical care free for all citizens of the EU.
7. Going abroad almost at zero level for the citizens of EU.
Otherwise your statement is empty.
Look, you just had Natalie Jaresko, now your Finance Minister, got a Ukrainian National Identity the day before to get the job. Before she was USanian and worked for the State Department.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/natalie-jaresko-ukraines-new-finance-minister-was-born-and-raised-in-chicago-2015-3?r=US&IR=T
Sarmatian, where are you? Come and save us!! Thread derailing alert!!!
Now to the point.
1. This news is one year old, so you might as well remind us that Queen Anne is dead.
2. There are other officials of "foreign origin" in Ukraine that were given a governmental job and Ukrainian citizenship: the minister of Economy and Trade (he is Lithuanian), the governor of Odesa region (Saakashvili), the deputy of the Interior minister (a Georgean), the head of Ukrnafta (a Brit) and many others on lower levels (like deputies of Saakashvili - from Georgia and Russia). And they, unlike Yaresko, are not of Ukrainian origin and don't speak Ukrainian.
3. I totally approve such approach since locals are prone to be engaged by some "magnate" to promote his interests or to be personally interested (through having their own business) in directing policies of a governmental body according to their schemes.
4. What does all of this have to do with traitors?
“But you apply the same logics that was used in the USSR after WWII” I love your obsession for USSR.
I didn’t know that USSR and Lenin was in favour of Free-Market Economy, which is an important part of my sentence, but there you go…
As usual you didn’t read the text.
Now, you are the one using “URSS” communist rhetoric, mixing-up “foreign powers” and “international capitalists”. Not really what I wrote, but your interpretation(s) of texts is always revealing…
“Having governments down is another thing Marxists enjoy” I NEW it!!! USA and EU are full of Marxists. How many governments theses two have put down now? And of course, in Ukraine, you were so respectful of democracy that you put down your elected President, you, as much as I remember, proudly telling as you supported them… All these Nazi are Marxists in disguise, I am telling you!!!
“Why are you then so negative about Ukrainians throwing down their government?” Hey, I am against Nazi, remember? I was all in favour, and I said it, of anti-corruption, fight for jobs and protection of pension demonstrations. But a Nazi-extreme right coup political coup, followed by attempt of political and ethnic cleansing? Without my approval, not that it really matter what I think anyway…
“This is exactly in your line of modus operandi.” Where did I even suggest this? That is pure and blatant propaganda. My line of action is within a democratic revolution by votes.
“Otherwise your statement is empty.” You should really pay attention of what people wrote, and not what you think people wrote: same way is not same thing. Or do you deny the denying of democratic referendum results by the EU? The fact that decisions are taken by un-elected bodies?
“This news is one year old” And? It is not true? Putin annexed Crimea more than one year ago, and you are still up-set about it.
“What does all of this have to do with traitors?” Nothing, two different lines of approach. Can you not multi-task and not able to deal with more than one subject? This one was more how EU and US put their pawns in place…
“locals are prone to be engaged by some "magnate" to promote his interests or to be personally interested (through having their own business) in directing policies of a governmental body according to their schemes.” Yeap, that is called “lobbying” in Western Countries, “Corruption” in the rest of the world.
Gilrandir
08-10-2015, 08:50
I didn’t know that USSR and Lenin was in favour of Free-Market Economy, which is an important part of my sentence, but there you go…
As usual you didn’t read the text.
As usual, you don't write what you claim you did. Here's your post:
"The USSR story didn't teach them anything." Apparently not as they created EU following the same way. Look, you just had Natalie Jaresko, now your Finance Minister, got a Ukrainian National Identity the day before to get the job. Before she was USanian and worked for the State Department.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/natali...15-3?r=US&IR=T
Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy.
“Having governments down is another thing Marxists enjoy” I NEW it!!! USA and EU are full of Marxists. How many governments theses two have put down now? And of course, in Ukraine, you were so respectful of democracy that you put down your elected President, you, as much as I remember, proudly telling as you supported them… All these Nazi are Marxists in disguise, I am telling you!!!
It only corroborates my statement that Marxists (and you proudly count yourself as one) are not different from the rest of the scum you are so fond of denouncing. What's next in your agenda? Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?
“Why are you then so negative about Ukrainians throwing down their government?” Hey, I am against Nazi, remember? I was all in favour, and I said it, of anti-corruption, fight for jobs and protection of pension demonstrations. But a Nazi-extreme right coup political coup, followed by attempt of political and ethnic cleansing?
Here we go in circles. You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup". It is the same as calling the October revolution of 1917 "a jewish coup" (or do you consider it such?). You know that all those you call nazis were ousted in the next parliamentary elections. Is it the way coupists act after "violently seizing the power in the country"? Yet it stays a nazi coup. I asked you to give me examples of ethnic cleansing (or attempts of them) - you failed to provide any.
So you blindly follow propaganda cliches (invented in Moscow) and refuse to own up to the truth. Well, propaganda-fighter, let me quote yourself "your interpretation(s) of texts is always revealing…"
“This is exactly in your line of modus operandi.” Where did I even suggest this? That is pure and blatant propaganda. My line of action is within a democratic revolution by votes.
OK. Let's read what you wrote:
Now, I am more in the mood to scrap all this EU free-market dictatorship and start again if possible, but first we have to take French traitor governments down.
The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that.
“Otherwise your statement is empty.” You should really pay attention of what people wrote, and not what you think people wrote: same way is not same thing. Or do you deny the denying of democratic referendum results by the EU? The fact that decisions are taken by un-elected bodies?
One similar thing you found doesn't justify the overall comparison you offered. You were against likening Putin and Hitler grounded on any statements or actions of those two, yet you pull the same trick yourself. Now let me quote myself (from another thread): not for naught did you study the art of propaganda. And Gandalf:
Perilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves.
“This news is one year old” And? It is not true? Putin annexed Crimea more than one year ago, and you are still up-set about it.
Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about.
This year it is 600 years since the French lost the battle of Agincourt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
You will have to explain, though, how all this contributes to this discussion of traitors.
“locals are prone to be engaged by some "magnate" to promote his interests or to be personally interested (through having their own business) in directing policies of a governmental body according to their schemes.” Yeap, that is called “lobbying” in Western Countries, “Corruption” in the rest of the world.
Seeing the corruption in Ukraine I will gladly swap it for what you term as lobbying.
Viking, I don't think you understand what I'm commenting about in your posts.
This statement is so vague as to have no meaning. I'll take the liberty of putting a better-specified argument in your mouth, which is just that African countries from which refugees/illegal immigrants into Europe commonly emigrate have some endemic ecological, structural, and cultural problems that contribute to the pressure to emigrate (e.g. violence, corruption, shortage of work, food, other resources, etc.); it is not a complete explanation toward accounting for these problems to say that international political or economic interaction is what simply contributes toward or perpetuates these problems or their conditions.
Further taking into account that everything interacts and covaries, we see that the world situation is dynamic and no institution or people anywhere act or exist in a vacuum distinct from others such that some parties could unilaterally shift certain policies to produce an immediate and dramatic effect on the aforementioned issues (besides, you know, OWG :wink:).
Put that way, I would agree, since it applies as well to Western countries and whatever problems you may identify in them.
The point is the principle that can be summarised with this analogy: if your goal is to cross a street, sufficiently strong wind can make it difficult, but as long as it isn't too strong, you can actually cross it. Even if you could write an entire doctoral thesis on how much harder it is to cross it with the wind in place, as long as you can cross it, you can.
It's not about saying that people are lazy or stupid, but that if they all co-operated, they could do it. If a large enough group realised this, they could actually succeed in changing the country for the better (as per the the 'realistic' criterion) (and as social media penetrates deeper and deeper into Africa, this also becomes a more realistic scenario).
History is full of examples of systems that were torn down by the people living under it; both peacefully and not so peacefully. To talk about complexity and covariance is to miss the point.
Very much possible, and why is that so?
For example because some people in that country did not have the foresight to prevent these people from getting into power.
Is it reasonable to stick to and even propagate a system that directly aids or at least profits from the instability of other societies and then wonder why these other societies are doing so bad?
Huh?
Did you even read the article? How many of the refugees sent their money to France?
I was talking about the state.
Yes, North Korea is only doing so well because it drove out all the foreigners.
No one said all foreigners should be expelled. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for more successful examples of countries who are in opposition to the "imperialists".
You keep ignoring that a lot of these internal problems only came to be through external influences.
Nope, I showed how these problems of external origin can be fixed or weakened. The fact that they are not is because the country's leadership is incompetent; they either can't or don't handle the problems they should be handling, and are more interested in enriching themselves and their families. They aren't failing because they face foreign demons that are too strong, but because they are hardly trying at all.
And why then do you seemingly blame the refugees for the problems in their countries?
I agree that Europe cannot take all the refugees but you sounded as though you were saying:
"Well, it's got nothing to do with us, let's seal our borders and wait until they fix their own mess."
If that was a misunderstanding then please elaborate
I don't blame them, but it is their country and their mess, and therefore it makes sense that they should attempt to fix it, per common sense. It is their countrymen that are killing each other and taking bribes, not French raid parties pillaging and burning villages.
Montmorency
08-10-2015, 11:34
The point is the principle that can be summarised with this analogy: if your goal is to cross a street, sufficiently strong wind can make it difficult, but as long as it isn't too strong, you can actually cross it. Even if you could write an entire doctoral thesis on how much harder it is to cross it with the wind in place, as long as you can cross it, you can.
It's not about saying that people are lazy or stupid, but that if they all co-operated, they could do it. If a large enough group realised this, they could actually succeed in changing the country for the better (as per the the 'realistic' criterion) (and as social media penetrates deeper and deeper into Africa, this also becomes a more realistic scenario).
I can't tell if this is gibberish or just outlandishly-naive.
I can't tell if this is gibberish or just outlandishly-naive.
It's straight forward logic, and why you don't get the message is beyond me. Methinks you are reading things into my posts that are not there.
For example because some people in that country did not have the foresight to prevent these people from getting into power.
Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?
Huh?
Western companies and sometimes even NGOs contribute to the problems in these countries significantly.
There are oil companies but also diamond and other raw material companies which help enricht the elite and do not mind that none of the profits go to the poor. This does not help since the elites can hire more guards and soldiers with that money to keep the poor in their place. Then you have cheap food imports from Europe and the US which ruin the local farmers since they cannot compete. If they want to buy the technology that would allow them to compete, they have to take up huge loans that put them into financial trouble for decades for a lot of reasons. Then you have european fishing boats fishing away all the fish in front of the african coasts, putting the fishermen out of work as well. And it does not stop there. In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.
I was talking about the state.
If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".
And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.
No one said all foreigners should be expelled. Look to Cuba and Venezuela for more successful examples of countries who are in opposition to the "imperialists".
Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries... :rolleyes:
Nope, I showed how these problems of external origin can be fixed or weakened. The fact that they are not is because the country's leadership is incompetent; they either can't or don't handle the problems they should be handling, and are more interested in enriching themselves and their families. They aren't failing because they face foreign demons that are too strong, but because they are hardly trying at all.
So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?
I don't blame them, but it is their country and their mess, and therefore it makes sense that they should attempt to fix it, per common sense. It is their countrymen that are killing each other and taking bribes, not French raid parties pillaging and burning villages.
You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.
It's straight forward logic, and why you don't get the message is beyond me. Methinks you are reading things into my posts that are not there.
It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?
Who in that country do you expect to show such foresight? The 95% who have neither running water nor an education?
For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.
Sometimes, it might be physically hard because there are large distances involved, farms and other types of work that cannot be abandoned, and so on. Other times, it's easier - like for city populations where smaller distances are involved. Cf. Cairo in 2011.
It's even easier for people with power; like wealthy people, or people in the military. But such people often don't care as long as their positions aren't threatened, or they have much to gain from it.
In the end it comes down to you just saying that it is their fault for not developing the technologies to compete in time. But if you say that you might as well go full darwinism and advocate that we sink all the boats we can find.
You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.
If you had read the article, you might have known that France gets to choose who is the state there and that the money was already in France by the time they became "independent".
That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.
And even if they could, it's like saying Greece could also just stop paying its debt and everything will be fine and the sun will shine.
Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?
Oh yes, Venezuela, super successful: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30710014
And Cuba never had any refugees flee to richer countries... :rolleyes:
So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?
So what you want to see is european-backed governments with european-supplied weapons slaughter a bunch of half-starved grandfathers and women because they try to overthrow the government? Or are you perhaps rooting for the rebels who killed their sons and daughters in front of their grandchildren whom they then recruited as child soldiers at age 5 to continue their mostly futile resistance to the government? Who of these is not trying hard enough in your opinion?
Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.
You know, if I hire a martial arts expert to pin you to the ground, then come and tell you that I want to enslave you and you say it's not fair, I can also reply: "Look, I don't blame you, but it's your life, and the mess you are in, it is only common sense that you have to beat this martial arts expert, not my problem. I just paid this guy to take care of MY needs."
You see, it's easy to say that when he has already pinned you to the ground and you are completely helpless.
A supposed analogy for what exactly?
It sounds like the ramblings of an armchair general who has no idea of the realities on the battlefield. Would you be ready to die (yes, permanently, no reload) tomorrow if your government decided to make a turn for the worse?
No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.
If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.
"This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything."Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy: Underline for you as you apparently suffer of short memory deficiency. As you can see, the part I highlight was part of one of your sentence, which contains my quote.
"It only corroborates my statement that Marxists (and you proudly count yourself as one) are not different from the rest of the scum you are so fond of denouncing. " Expect of course, one, you NEVER denounced nazism, well, generally speaking yes, but in reality no, as you ALWAYS find a good reason why Ukrainian Nazi are not THAT much nazi, and two, you still don't understand what Marxism is. Well, to be fair, you don't seem to understand what Nazism is either.
"Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?" Still leaving in the 19th Century? You really should go about your USSR model...
The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that. That is because you still live in the 19th Century early Soviet Union state of mind, so you translate words in something they are not telling. Nothing I can do about it, sorry. I tried and failed miserably.
"You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup"." Ahhh.... Finally... We are making progress. So, you are now admitting part that you qualify of small (and I would agree with you) were Nazi. Good. Then, yes, the Coup itself was made by this minority, well organised and highly motivated. Like during the Russian Revolution you always refer to, 2 steps, and the active minority won. In case of Ukraine it went wrong for the Nazi as they failed their target (Former President escaped, and worst, Crimea lost and rebellion of the Russian Ukrainians (or Ukrainian Russian as you please) went berserk and started to fight back again real or perceive ethnic/cultural/political menaces.
As facts for claim of will of ethnic cleansing: Army Unit with 2 SS PZ Division Das Reich, ban of Russian language, and various demonstrations in you country. I linked all this, so go back to the links, provided by BBC and US channels.
You willingness to swallow your own propaganda had yest shown you are not ready for truth, but I am not complete out of hope for you, as you start to accept the Nazi thing. Still a lot of work to do, but I am sure you can do it. We are all behind you, you can do it...
"Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about." :laugh4:. The English are upset about it. They lost the war...
Care to explain what you were trying to show? Because I fail to see it! :laugh4:
"You will have to explain, though, how all this contributes to this discussion of traitors." Err, it was about 1 year old doesn't make it untrue... Nothing to do with traitors... Hmmm, perhaps you are right. I really have to write in more simplistic way if I want to be understand by you...
"Seeing the corruption in Ukraine I will gladly swap it for what you term as lobbying" I wouldn't disagree with this one...:2thumbsup:
For example. People uniting in great numbers could become an unstoppable force. Not just for purely political reasons, but also to co-operate over harvest, trade etc. You don't need education to come up with this, basic logic and imagination will suffice.
Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.
You don't need modern technology to have a functioning country in the first place. If poor countries co-operated and invested in technology and education, they could become relatively self-sufficient. Many poor countries have mineral resources etc. that many rich countries can only dream of.
Yes, and why do they not cooperate?
That makes no sense. Revenues for the state are generated continuously, and people with the military behind them decides who are in charge, unless France would dear to go for a full-scale invasion, which could still be won, either directly on indirectly. But it sounds like an unlikely scenario, anyway.
According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?
Greece has very high living standards compared to the countries we are talking about here, and through things like these more dependent on good international relations. A country where a majority of the population cannot even afford a TV has much less of a reason to maintain good international relations. What are they going to lose out on? Even more loans? Access to Spanish beach resorts?
Food?
So you are saying that Cuba and Venezuela are no better places than the average poor African country?
No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.
Huh? I was saying that governments in Africa weren't trying hard enough to neutralise negative foreign sources in case they still exists.
Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?
A supposed analogy for what exactly?
That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
No, just a straw man on your side. Show me were I told people in poor countries to do anything at all. All I have actually done is to emphasise what is possible, and how.
You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?
If I had a lethal genetic disease, I could study medicine and put all my work hours and spare time into finding a cure before it's too late - or I could study little to nothing, live a generally leisurely and pleasant life and hope that someone else finds a cure. My choice.
How does that relate to refugees?
Let's get back to what you originally said:
Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups. Fix that, and the exodus would subside.
According to you this should be done by the locals, yet hundreds of thousands of them would rather flee than fix their countries, why do you think that is?
Papewaio
08-11-2015, 04:27
Don't worry the elites will be able to get rid of their mercenaries in favour of AI drones soon...
Don't worry the elites will be able to get rid of their mercenaries in favour of AI drones soon...
Are you suggesting that the plotline of the Starwars Pre-Sequels will become true?
Gilrandir
08-11-2015, 14:34
"This reminds me something... Ah, yes, Lenin in 1917. Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists" and "down with those we don't like"? The USSR story didn't teach them anything."Show me in it "the important part of your sentence" which mentions ANY economy: Underline for you as you apparently suffer of short memory deficiency. As you can see, the part I highlight was part of one of your sentence, which contains my quote.
Ok, so you come down to calling names again. Now I can react in kind (if our chauvinist moderator doesn't stop me).
You evidently suffer of eyesight problems. Show me were ECONOMY is mentioned.
Expect of course, one, you NEVER denounced nazism, well, generally speaking yes, but in reality no, as you ALWAYS find a good reason why Ukrainian Nazi are not THAT much nazi, Well, to be fair, you don't seem to understand what Nazism is either.
You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis while their chief spokesman and a parliamentary member is a Russian speaking Jew and they were and are financed by the chief Jew of Ukraine - Kolomoisky. So as Kolomoisky put it, either they are not nazis, or I'm not a Jew. Take a pick.
you still don't understand what Marxism is.
For 20 years I lived in the country which practised Marxism for 70 years, while you seem to know about it only from books. So I know what it is if such an ideology is implemented.
"Advocating let's-seize-all-property-and-split-it-even- between-all-citizens approach?" Still leaving in the 19th Century? You really should go about your USSR model...
It was the corner stone of the ideology by which the USSR lived, and it may be an eye-opener for you, but Marxism IS a 19th century ideology, so the question is who's living back then?
The words "to scrap" and "to take the government down" are very different (to put it mildly) from "a democratic revolution by votes".
So you should be more precise in wording your thoughts if you want others to read them correctly. Not the first time I say that. That is because you still live in the 19th Century early Soviet Union state of mind, so you translate words in something they are not telling. Nothing I can do about it, sorry. I tried and failed miserably.
Being miserable at working with language has always been one of your greatest weaknesses. You don't have to be sorry about deficiencies you can't overcome. A one-legged person shouldn't apologize that he can't run 100 meters like Hussain Bolt.
"You know perfectly well that only a small part of Maidaners were nazis, yet you call it "a nazi coup"." Ahhh.... Finally... We are making progress. So, you are now admitting part that you qualify of small (and I would agree with you) were Nazi. Good. Then, yes, the Coup itself was made by this minority, well organised and highly motivated. Like during the Russian Revolution you always refer to, 2 steps, and the active minority won. In case of Ukraine it went wrong for the Nazi as they failed their target (Former President escaped, and worst, Crimea lost and rebellion of the Russian Ukrainians (or Ukrainian Russian as you please) went berserk and started to fight back again real or perceive ethnic/cultural/political menaces.
It seems that short (and perhaps long as well) memory deficiency is all yours.
I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan, but I did and do deny that it was them who were the only combatants and only them "ousted" Yanukovych. If you want to believe in what you believe, go ahead.
And if they were real nazis, they would never merge into background after they had come to power.
You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with.
As facts for claim of will of ethnic cleansing: Army Unit with 2 SS PZ Division Das Reich, ban of Russian language, and various demonstrations in you country. I linked all this, so go back to the links, provided by BBC and US channels.
So wearing emblems and marching and the ban that was repealed a day later equal ethnic cleansing? Now I see how qualified you were in Bosnia to detect ethnic cleansings.
"Ok. Let's now bring up all events of the past someone is upset about." :laugh4:. The English are upset about it. They lost the war...
Care to explain what you were trying to show? Because I fail to see it! :laugh4:
I followed your way: I gave an event of the past that should have signified something and without an explanation of its relation to the topic of traitors posted it. It seems your way of proving something, so I did prove something, though what I proved is known to you only.
Apart from the reasons you also gave, there are also other factors such as repression, through the army and spies etc. Remember Tiananmen square? The Czech attempts at breaking away from the soviet union? The Warsaw ghetto uprising?
Sometimes the government will just drive some tanks over your protest and for the common people this is dangerous.
On one hand such efforts can be detected and crushed early if the planning is huge and on the other hand if you plan small, there is a good chace that the others will be too afraid to join and it becomes even more likely that the government declares you a splinter group and drives some tanks over you.
Your ideas are based on the few cases where it worked but those are no guarantee whatsoever.
There were also many people in Tehran and in turkish cities, in both cases the protests were violently crushed because the rest of the population did not support them enough or was too afraid to join in.
You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.
They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.
Yes, and why do they not cooperate?
I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.
According to you, the world/Africa as it is makes no sense if I understand you correctly, and yet it is this way. Why do you think that is the case?
Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.
Food?
That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.
No, you called them more successful examples, although I now see that that was only a relative statement. North Korea also has a higher living standard, some African countries may want to be more like that, surely that would also end the refugee crisis just like turning all these countries into DDRs would.
Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.
Maybe because they do not want to. So what do you recommend to the peasant whom you do not want to flee across the mediterranean?
That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that
a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)
Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.
That when someone is keeping you down it may be hard to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.
You kept arguing that governments can be overthrown, if that was not you telling them what they should do instead of becoming refugees, then what is your point? Do you have an actual realistic solution or just would-be solutions that are obviously inferior solutions according to the hundreds of thousands of refugees wo would rather enter a rusty boat than try what you suggest?
The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:
Blaming problems in the third world on outside forces is typically a convenient scapegoat. The most troubled of these countries normally have corrupt governance and/or major warring ethnic groups.
What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.
How does that relate to refugees?
People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).
You can look at this in a larger context, however. For example, they could have started organising long before the countries got their independence.
They could even have started organising long before colonisation. After all, isn't natural to have a curiosity about what is beyond the world you know or experience? If they had obtained knowledge about the outside world, they would have learnt about potential dangers and new technological developments. Many countries in the west were united by force, so if neighbouring tribes did not agree to an alliance for safety, they could conquer them.
So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did and it was their own fault that they got into this position?
I am sure many do; we do even have the AU organisation. This is where things like dictators and corruption enter the frame.
And who keeps these things in place? The people who would rather run away from them than try to fight them alone?
And what could be done to change that? Just turn around the boats?
Alternatively, the article you linked to has misunderstood or misrepresents reality. If it largely hasn't, then fear of loosing privileges among the elites may be of importance.
How often have you been to Africa or in the political circles of former colonial powers or is it possible that you misunderstand what's going on there? And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites? Would doing that also be preferable to fleeing?
You are aware that people all over Africa and the Middle East already fled even before it became easier to reach Europe. They just fled somewhere else then and many/most still do.
That's definitely an area where African countries can be self-suficient with proper governance; especially with co-operation and trade between countries.
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-agriculture/eu-food-imports-pose-tricky-bala-news-516102
“It is difficult to imagine the sense in the system, because when we import, say, green beans from Kenya, we’re taking imbedded water from a drought-prone country, and then we’re putting into our supermarkets, into our fridges and then we’re throwing it way uneaten,” Benton told EurActiv by telephone, saying his comments reflected his personal views.
“But equally, when you talk to governments down there they say, ‘we need the money’. So in a sense, that’s a very tricky balance to negotiate because by those trade deals you are helping them to develop economically, but at the same time in the long run it cannot be sustainable and that as population grows, and as climate change impacts increasingly happen, it can’t continue in the way it is at the moment.”
Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.
Remember that we have no reason assume that countries like Venezuela and Cuba are run as well as "anti-imperialist" countries realistically can be. I am pretty certain that is not the case. What they do demonstrate is that this is not an inherently worse option.
You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.
That's a separate topic. All I am saying is that
a) I do not welcome their arrival in large numbers
b) They can put in an effort to make their country better (but there is no guarantee it will work during their lifetimes)
Now, if wealthy countries like European ones consistently reject these people, the odds should increase for people in these countries to take action to fix their countries.
I actually agree that a is not sustainable, but in b you come across as though you blame it on the refugees and you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...
Name specific countries where this is a good analogy, and explain how.
Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable. Apparently most of the refugees in Greece are incidentally from Syria and Afghanistan.
Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?
Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/obama-restores-us-military-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/07/us-military-aid-for-al-sisi-in-egypt-state-dept-fails-to-review/
The point has always been to argue for what I posted earlier in this thread:
Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.
What people living in these countries chose to do is up to them. There isn't room for all of them to resettle here, that's for sure.
We have enough food and room for a whole lot more. Maybe you mean we cannot take them without sharing some of our wealth with them or treating them really badly.
People living in these countries can choose the easy path (do no nothing to improve their country and focus purely on day-to-day tasks), or a hard path (work to fix their country alongside their daily tasks).
And since you let them choose, many choose to come here. I'm glad we agree that this is a valid choice.
So they are "unnatural" because they did not develop in the same way Europeans did
Those are your words.
and it was their own fault that they got into this position?
Up to this point, I've been concerned about the time period from the start of colonialisation (at the earliest) to the present. Going even earlier is a different topic, so I'll drop that.
However, this is something we can also apply to the world even at present. Currently, we implicitly assume that the universe does not contain hostile high-tech beings from other planets. The moral blame might lie with any aliens that obliterate or enslave us, but if we had focused on technological developments and scouting the universe rather than killing each other and pretending the Earth is all there is, we'd be making smarter choices. In many contexts, talking about who is to blame is pointless; what ultimately matters is prevention.
And who keeps these things in place?
Evil non-African foreigners? Doubt it.
And if you are right, how would one improve the situation with the elites?
That's an internal problem, cf. the starting point of this debate.
Yes, as you said, cut ties to Europe and just trade among africans, then wonder why you have gone broke without the export profits.
Then blame them for having gone broke because they cut the ties with Europe. Also clearly visible here that the professor has no clue what he's talking about since the solution is obviously easy and common sense.
They need the money because they are part of the international system - circular reasoning. And look, content in your article agrees with me in terms of priorities:
Poor transportation connections, high tariffs, security barriers and primitive information-sharing on market needs contribute to the problem, ACP’s Chambas told EurActiv, making it easier to ship goods to Europe by air or sea.
Leaders of the 53-nation African Union have approved an “action plan” to change this by promoting regional commerce and providing a more inviting manufacturing climate. The AU plan calls for the free movement of people and commerce, and multinational cooperation to address the sub-continent’s pitiful infrastructure.
Regional trade blocs in the west, south and east have led to easier trade and infrastructure investments – though Chambas said central Africa remains largely outside the picture.
You mean empty shelves are just as bad in Venezuela as they are in Africa and therefore Venezuela is clearly not worse off?
Of course that is a good point, hungry people are not doing worse than other hungry people, problem solved.
Well...many places in Africa they don't even have shelves. As far as I can see, the ordinary Venezuelan is not starving, uneducated or dying in droves from mosquitoes.
you seem pretty naive/spoiled/unrealistic in your expectations. If they are not expectations then your argument seems pointless, might as well point out that one can theoretically fly faster than the speed of light if one had unlimited energy. And those people could work on that to fly to a better planet or they can just continue to take the lazy route and flee to Europe...
I explicitly stated that there was no guarantee it would work in their lifetimes in the parenthesis.
And no; infinite energy would take you arbitrarily close to the speed of light, but not past it.
Afghanistan, they were organized, got bombed by an outside power, had a puppet installed and were left alone in a state where continued infighting seems almost inevitable.
So the Afghans are wired in such a manner that if they get bombed, they start fighting each other? Sounds like they should start a national counselling program.
Maybe you can explain how the outside influences did not contribute to the stream of people fleeing from Afghanistan?
This was never my argument.
Oh and like, the egyptian military is still/again funded by the US.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/obama-restores-us-military-aid-to-egypt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2015/04/07/us-military-aid-for-al-sisi-in-egypt-state-dept-fails-to-review/
Yet US funding didn't prevent the previous revolution.
Yes, and WHY do they have these problems? Many argue it's because colonialism messed them up, the slave trade turned them into enemies and borders were drawn arbitrarily and can now only be changed through bloodshed that will not really stop the stream of refugees.
In effect you are saying that they are too stupid to be able to "un-mess" themselves.
We have enough food and room for a whole lot more.
But not every inhabitant of these countries.
Those are your words.
You say exploration is natural and you say they didn't do it, so what am I supposed to deduce from your words?
Are you speaking in riddles on purpose or do you just not have any opinion but merely strange explanations with no point to them?
Do you blame anyone or are you just saying things for the fun of it?
"Show me were ECONOMY is mentioned." No problem:"Will Marxists ever change their rhetorics of "traitors yielding the national property to international capitalists". The worst of this is it is what YOU wrote. Marxism is (but not only as a specialist who lived 20 years in a Marxist society already knows) a explanation of how economy works.
"For 20 years" And this qualify you to know what Marxism is about? How? You were not good at understand it, I would say. Did you play truant during the lessons?
"You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis" They call themselves Nazi, and wear Nazi Uniforms and symbols, named their organisations with Nazi names. I don't need twisted explanation.
"I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan" Oh yes, you did. You wrote things like "I wouldn't call them Nazi but extreme-nationalists" or close enough. :laugh4:You even did right now, in your latest intervention: "And if they were real nazis".
"You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with." Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?). With all the Russian Pro-Ukrainian government, some can wonder how Putin succeeded to find any volunteers to give weapons to fight. Of course, I always forgot. These were Chechen mercenaries...
"So wearing emblems and marching and the ban that was repealed a day later equal ethnic cleansing?" Yeap. It starts like this. The fact they failed is just a proof how incompetent they were. But the last one is no excuse for the try.
"Now I see how qualified you were in Bosnia to detect ethnic cleansings." Now I see how pathetic and out of touch your arguments are.
" I gave an event of the past " 1 year for me, 600 for you. I see... And again, perhaps this time you will get it, it was nothing link with traitors, but with expansion of EU to the East in a USSR kind of way (to answer to your question about what did Marxists learned about USSR bla bla bla baseless intervention you provided).
And I still don't see your point about Azincourt. But you probably don't either, because you don't debate, you attack randomly at what you perceived as weak points to your "opponents".
Now, except if you come-up with others interventions not directly linked with ultra-nationalist Ukrainian sources/propaganda (you can carry on) but I will not take any more time to answer your bubbles. Be free to carry on, but I spent too much time with your none sense, and was too close to become like you, full of what ever you want to qualify your various rants.
I do apology to others participants for this. I can't promise for ever, but I will try to do better...:yes:
You say exploration is natural and you say they didn't do it, so what am I supposed to deduce from your words?
That the idea of exploring the world and finding out what's out there could actually have struck them, as well as any other person on the planet. Most people are primarily concerned with what's right in front of their noses (except the stuff that's popular parlance, like global warming currently). There are downsides and upsides to this, like everything else.
One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.
Do you blame anyone or are you just saying things for the fun of it?
What would be the point of blaming people? Whether the Huns had decided to settle outside the Roman Empire, or the Romans had run their empire properly, a lot of outcomes would have been similar as far as the health of the Roman Empire is concerned.
Gilrandir
08-12-2015, 14:51
Marxism is (but not only as a specialist who lived 20 years in a Marxist society already knows) a explanation of how economy works.
Not only. It is about politics as well.
"For 20 years" And this qualify you to know what Marxism is about? How? You were not good at understand it, I would say. Did you play truant during the lessons?
I learnt it not in a classroom, I LIVED it. And if you paid attention (which I doubt) I always spoke of APPLIED Marxism. The Communists tried (with what understanding of it they had) to put into practice Marx's economic theory. We all know the results.
"I never denied that there were nazis on Maidan" Oh yes, you did. You wrote things like "I wouldn't call them Nazi but extreme-nationalists" or close enough.
Again a misplaced quote. It was said about Svoboda, but besides them there were other extemists on Maidan, some of who were for sure nazis. And I never denied it, moreover, I had an explanation of it which is: in times of turmoils all kinds of extremists come to the limelight and when the turmoils are over, they merge into backgound. The turmoil in Ukraine didn't die but such elements have become no more conspicuous than in other countries.
"You evidently don't either when you call Right Sector nazis" They call themselves Nazi, and wear Nazi Uniforms and symbols, named their organisations with Nazi names. I don't need twisted explanation.
You said it about Azov. Right Sector don't do these things.
And as is usual with you (as a Marxist) you see the world in two colors - black and white. No hues or shades.
Black is for Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the USA, obscurantists, religion... White is for fewer things - valiant French army and... rioting Russian-speaking populaces. Consequently, everything that refers to the first can't be any good and vice versa.
You eagerly search for nazis in Ukraine (and in Ukraine only) turning a blind eye elswhere.
Is this not nazism?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29700542
There were other numerous examples when Ukrainian POWs were marched through Donetsk or taken into the streets so that "the populaces" could kick them or spit them into the face.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28919683
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85qAWk_PKv4
Again propaganda?
And Tsarov thanked Right Sector for saving him from a crowd that tried to lynch him. For you to understand it better, it is like.... you thanking Le Pen.
You accuse Ukraine of planned ethnic cleansings, and Russia DOES it:
https://news.pn/en/RussiaInvadedUkraine/139919
Even if the numbers given by Dzhamilev are twice exaggerated, what would you say if
the same was said about Russian speakers fleeing the "junta-ruled Ukraine"?
You don't want to see anything of that becuase it doesn't fit into your vision of events.
Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?). With all the Russian Pro-Ukrainian government, some can wonder how Putin succeeded to find any volunteers to give weapons to fight. Of course, I always forgot. These were Chechen mercenaries...
You have no idea what Ukrainian media publish, yet you accuse all of them of propaganda. I once said (and it stays valid) that Ukrainian TV and internet sources are full of criticism of the Ukrainian government, the president, the way the crisis is addressed, the corruption in Ukrainian army, the oligarchs' depredations and so on. So one can find a lot of information, not only propaganda.
But here I see a strange thing - for the first time you admit that the separatists' weapons were given to them by Putin. It took you just a year to see it! Give me a break! That's too fast a progress.
And again, perhaps this time you will get it, it was nothing link with traitors, but with expansion of EU to the East in a USSR kind of way ...
...you don't debate, you attack randomly at what you perceived as weak points to your "opponents".
It is difficult to debate with a person who says something about traitor governments and rightaway links a one-year old information about Yaresko. Cohesion is what I percieve as a weak point in this post.
One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.
What would be the point of blaming people? Whether the Huns had decided to settle outside the Roman Empire, or the Romans had run their empire properly, a lot of outcomes would have been similar as far as the health of the Roman Empire is concerned.
So you think modern morals and ideals are superfluous nd everyone should just learn to cope with the darwinist world we live in and make the best of it?
You're still saying a lot about facts without making an actual point. Would you say if a banker tricks me and I lose money and I find a way to kill him that's just how it is and the police shouldn't really do anything for he should have found a way to defend himself or do you sometimes hold your and other modern governments and societies to higher standards?
You sound incredibly darwinist to me. The strong will just trounce the weak and that's the way it is, nothing we should do about it. Is that your idea or are you just stating facts again without any morale at all? Do you have any idea what should be done in the future or are you just going to what what will happen and assume that it is what it is whatever it is?
Gilrandir
08-13-2015, 09:16
"You again try to present the events as an ethnic and/or linguistic conflict, and neither is correct. Ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers were as numerous as Ukrainians and Ukrainian speakers on Maidan, 60% of ATO soldiers now are Russian-speakers, some predominantly Russian-speaking regions (Mykolayiv and Dnipropetrovsk) show a higher percentage of those who were mobilized than some "nationalistic" regions (Ternopil). So you still stay a prisoner of the stereotypes and misconceptions you adopted and are going by with." Bla bla bla bla. From Ukrainianationalist.com, I suppose, or equivalent (Ukr.gov.propaganda.com?).
Here's the chart that shows mobilization progress:
15927
You're still saying a lot about facts without making an actual point.
Of course there's a point: it pays to be prepared, it pays to make an effort. Taking the victim role typically won't work unless there are people capable of helping you out who takes pity on you; and in many cases, you are dead before that can happen.
Of course there's a point: it pays to be prepared, it pays to make an effort. Taking the victim role typically won't work unless there are people capable of helping you out who takes pity on you; and in many cases, you are dead before that can happen.
How is that going to help now? Should they prepare now and for what?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-13-2015, 22:04
Here's a thought - if a people have a "cultural problem" forming a functioning state then those who flee are likely to export that cultural problem - something we see if countries in Europe today, in certain parts of the UK and especially in Scandinavia where they have allowed so many people in so quickly.
The weak response to the problem of illegal immigration encourages the belief in certain countries that we are soft (we are soft, but not as much as they think) and that encourages more people to come. Part of why the UK is currently fighting so hard to push back the Calais migrants is to disabuse them of the idea that the UK is a soft touch, or softer than France.
The open borders within mainland Europe at best mask the problem and at worse exacerbate it because if you can get ashore in Italy or Greece you can then travel throughout Europe until you get the UK, which is why all the illegals suddenly surface in Calais, it's the presence of a controlled border.
That the idea of exploring the world and finding out what's out there could actually have struck them, as well as any other person on the planet. Most people are primarily concerned with what's right in front of their noses (except the stuff that's popular parlance, like global warming currently). There are downsides and upsides to this, like everything else.
One downside is that outside forces stronger than you might come apparently out of nowhere and attack you when you are unprepared - whether they are called Huns or Europeans.
Europeans discovered the Americas and became global colonizers because they wanted to find a sea route to the Indies and become rich trading in spices and other goods, not because they were naturally curious. The East coast of Africa already had sea routes to the Indies, where the wealthy Swahili city-states served as hubs for Arab traders. Europeans had reasons to explore that Africans didn't.
And besides that, the colonization of Africa happened a long time after Europeans made contact, the Europeans didn't just suddenly come out of nowhere.
Lets take an example to Hungary, they just build a fence that is not impossible to get over, but at least very tricky. We could also learn from the Ozzies, they haul the ships back without being jerks, they give good boats and plenty of supplies. As it is now it's a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen, it should be made VERY clear that there is no meaninfull life for them in Europe first, despite what these Maelström typs open-bordere fundie types say. It is indeed much harsher than some say by the way.
edit, it can also be downright cruel. Personal experience; a friend of mine lived in a house just before an asylum-centre, we always had a lot of barbecues and welcomed everyone. Pakistani guy thought he got a permit and a job and cooked us a big dinner to celebrate it,but they lied to him as the bus went straight to Schiphol airport. Nobody of us ever heard from him after that.
How is that going to help now? Should they prepare now and for what?
Well, if you want to prepare something; it pays to have a functioning country. It would act as a preparation for most things..
Europeans discovered the Americas and became global colonizers because they wanted to find a sea route to the Indies and become rich trading in spices and other goods, not because they were naturally curious. The East coast of Africa already had sea routes to the Indies, where the wealthy Swahili city-states served as hubs for Arab traders. Europeans had reasons to explore that Africans didn't.
And besides that, the colonization of Africa happened a long time after Europeans made contact, the Europeans didn't just suddenly come out of nowhere.
I wasn't saying anything about what drove the Europeans of that time, but that surely almost everyone has some curiosity about what's beyond the next hill. For those who don't, they can still realise that such a curiosity can pay off and even become vital.
Well, if you want to prepare something; it pays to have a functioning country. It would act as a preparation for most things..
Now we are arguing in circles. Whose fault is it that they do not have a functioning country? What are the factors that led to, say, Afghanistan not being a functional country today? You may also pick an African country that spills out a lot of refugees.
We have indeed gone (almost) full circle, and I am not repeating my arguments.
We have indeed gone (almost) full circle, and I am not repeating my arguments.
So you still blame Africans?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-22/blame-the-rich-world-for-the-global-refugee-crisis
War and political upheaval may create refugees, but it's time to acknowledge that the global system for dealing with the problem is broken—and that's in no small part because the industrialized world does so little to help fix it.
But hey, it's the communist Bloomberg thing, probably can't be trusted.
"Lets take an example to Hungary, they just build a fence that is not impossible to get over" They will go under... And me who thought that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was a victory for democracy... Mind you, taken example from Hungary which was Nazi then Communist... They know how to built wall and to deport people, unarmed and poor people preferably...
The solution to stop immigration is to stop the causes of immigration, like thinking before invading others countries. The Syrians who are fleeing are trying to save their skins from an horror we created. The trade "agreements" we impose to others countries create unemployment and misery.
Greyblades
08-15-2015, 04:29
An Africa thread with no kadagar, feels empty.
Kadagar_AV
08-15-2015, 05:10
An Africa thread with no kadagar, feels empty.
I don't really have much input?
It's a disaster in the Med sea... And as long as we keep signaling that people can get a better life here, people will try and many will die. I heard the number of refugees in the world now reach around 60 million... It's very obvious that the solution isn't to accept them, but instead to help build up their countries.
I would suggest 4 things:
1. Raids on the ports where these boats set out. Sink them before they take off.
2. Any boat that does get away should be found, and dragged back to Africa (and get sunk after everyone got off).
3. Anyone who comes in an illegal way will automatically be refused and shipped back.
4. Put the whole asylum thingie IN THE ACTUAL COUNTRIES where the refugees are... IE, if you are in a camp in Somalia and want to get to Sweden, you apply in that camp in Somalia, and get a yes/no. If anyone comes anyway, as I just said, they should be automatically shipped back.
All sound ideas. Radical idea to keep them from comming in the first place, stage a fictional labour-camp with convincing actors. Spread the word. A lot will believe it given the history of Europa. We can use smuggler's propaganda against them, they are told that there is work for everyone VOILA working camps with horrible conditions. You only have to spread the rumour. That is only going to work in places like Somalia though, the Middle-Eastern refugees will know it's bull
"Who's we" All the "coalitions", "Allies" and others names aggressors gave themselves for the invasions bits. For free-marketeers, EU, USA, France, Germany, Italy. Spain, Russia, China and all others looting natural resources.
The message we have to send is we finally get it, and we will act as human being and stop to loot and wage wars, and to exploit the poorest to make our rich richer, that we understand finally that we leave in the same Eco-system so, with our polluting economy we created the drought which obliged populations to emigrate, that climate change is a reality and we understand the Bangladeshi who refuse to drown. We will really start to help instead of just pretending, and we will stop to be blind and racist, accepting under "cultural difference" behaviours and laws against Human Rights, or to impose permanent suffering to entire populations for what ever reasons that suit us.
Not only we have to sent the message, but we have to implement.
And this will never happen because the rightful owners of EU, US and others want money, and like the dentist killing a lion, they think it is ok because they PAY for it, and the lobbies they pay to buy the national and international law makers insure it is "legal".
So "illegal" migrants will come, and you can built as much as fences, mines fields, or worst, you want, they will come to die on our shore lines to remind the tourists their death is the price to pay for the lollies, and beach folding-chairs made in Pakistan by under-age under-paid children.
Kadagar_AV
08-15-2015, 10:16
"Who's we" All the "coalitions", "Allies" and others names aggressors gave themselves for the invasions bits. For free-marketeers, EU, USA, France, Germany, Italy. Spain, Russia, China and all others looting natural resources.
The message we have to send is we finally get it, and we will act as human being and stop to loot and wage wars, and to exploit the poorest to make our rich richer, that we understand finally that we leave in the same Eco-system so, with our polluting economy we created the drought which obliged populations to emigrate, that climate change is a reality and we understand the Bangladeshi who refuse to drown. We will really start to help instead of just pretending, and we will stop to be blind and racist, accepting under "cultural difference" behaviours and laws against Human Rights, or to impose permanent suffering to entire populations for what ever reasons that suit us.
Not only we have to sent the message, but we have to implement.
And this will never happen because the rightful owners of EU, US and others want money, and like the dentist killing a lion, they think it is ok because they PAY for it, and the lobbies they pay to buy the national and international law makers insure it is "legal".
So "illegal" migrants will come, and you can built as much as fences, mines fields, or worst, you want, they will come to die on our shore lines to remind the tourists their death is the price to pay for the lollies, and beach folding-chairs made in Pakistan by under-age under-paid children.
You kind of come up as some sort of western flagellant...
Black people and Arabs will continue to be just that (black and arabic). They will not fix their own countries, instead they want to move to functional countries - and once there - they will want to spread exactly the culture that made their home nation fall to pieces.
There is NOTHING we can do to help them, until they start to help themselves...
I mean, geez... I wonder what Sweden would have been like if everyone would have fled instead of standing up!!?? I wonder what the western world would have been like, had people fled instead of standing up.
Disregard that, we KNOW what the world would have looked like. It would have looked like North Korea, like Afghanistan, like Somalia...
I am ALL for helping Africa... But not by bringing africans here and having me suffer their inability to function in a modern society.
"Who's we" All the "coalitions", "Allies" and others names aggressors gave themselves for the invasions bits. For free-marketeers, EU, USA, France, Germany, Italy. Spain, Russia, China and all others looting natural resources.
The message we have to send is we finally get it, and we will act as human being and stop to loot and wage wars, and to exploit the poorest to make our rich richer, that we understand finally that we leave in the same Eco-system so, with our polluting economy we created the drought which obliged populations to emigrate, that climate change is a reality and we understand the Bangladeshi who refuse to drown. We will really start to help instead of just pretending, and we will stop to be blind and racist, accepting under "cultural difference" behaviours and laws against Human Rights, or to impose permanent suffering to entire populations for what ever reasons that suit us.
Not only we have to sent the message, but we have to implement.
And this will never happen because the rightful owners of EU, US and others want money, and like the dentist killing a lion, they think it is ok because they PAY for it, and the lobbies they pay to buy the national and international law makers insure it is "legal".
So "illegal" migrants will come, and you can built as much as fences, mines fields, or worst, you want, they will come to die on our shore lines to remind the tourists their death is the price to pay for the lollies, and beach folding-chairs made in Pakistan by under-age under-paid children.
'We' simply can't help them. Bigger scumbags than 'us' make their lives a living hell. When here they bring it with them instead of leaving it behind
4. Put the whole asylum thingie IN THE ACTUAL COUNTRIES where the refugees are... IE, if you are in a camp in Somalia and want to get to Sweden, you apply in that camp in Somalia, and get a yes/no. If anyone comes anyway, as I just said, they should be automatically shipped back.
Don't have much time, but, you mean set up military bases in every war zone?
Isn't that basically the same as colonizing half the world again?
Isn't that basically the same as colonizing half the world again?
Would that really be such a bad idea? Somali friend of mine would love it if the west takes over Somalia. But I don't think he means that.
Would that really be such a bad idea? Somali friend of mine would love it if the west takes over Somalia. But I don't think he means that.
So we go back to Afghanistan, invade Syria and create outposts all over Africa, partially by force since the locals may not want that, and that is supposed to be easier and cheaper than accepting some refugees? And we send all European navies to patrol the northern african coast because Italy is obviously tired of doing it all by themselves. Or maybe we just invade Italy as well and make them do it?
And then, I assume, we get the British to run all of this because the locals always love them.
So we go back to Afghanistan, invade Syria and create outposts all over Africa, partially by force since the locals may not want that, and that is supposed to be easier and cheaper than accepting some refugees? And we send all European navies to patrol the northern african coast because Italy is obviously tired of doing it all by themselves. Or maybe we just invade Italy as well and make them do it?
And then, I assume, we get the British to run all of this because the locals always love them.
Can't be practical without being heartless or indifferent. What do you do yourself besides asking questions. I got a Somali refugee sleeping below me right now, there's just a bed there but he can use my toilet or take a shower any time he wants. Doing more than most.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-15-2015, 21:16
Don't have much time, but, you mean set up military bases in every war zone?
Isn't that basically the same as colonizing half the world again?
Sounds like Kad was arguing more for an Aid-Station-cum-Embassy than a military base, it's a bit much for you to make that jump.
Hi basic point is sound - importing refugees is liable to create more refugees as the fit able and useful will be most able to flee and subsequently resettle the countries in question will suffer an increasing "brain drain" which will, critically, cause their civil society to collapse along with their educational establishment. This is not a theory it's fact embodied in Somali and Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent even in countries like Pakistan and India.
The NHS runs on Indian doctors and even accounting for India's excellent education system and huge population that still means fewer doctors per capita in India. Now consider a country like Somalia, where pretty much all the professionals got out in the early nineties and settled in Europe or the US. True, some of them are now going back but everyone else has has two decades of virtually no society outside Somaliland and Puntland.
Kadagar_AV
08-15-2015, 22:48
So we go back to Afghanistan, invade Syria and create outposts all over Africa, partially by force since the locals may not want that, and that is supposed to be easier and cheaper than accepting some refugees? And we send all European navies to patrol the northern african coast because Italy is obviously tired of doing it all by themselves. Or maybe we just invade Italy as well and make them do it?
And then, I assume, we get the British to run all of this because the locals always love them.
Eeeeh, like PVC said, you draw very big conclusions...
First of all, I don't see much need for military outposts... Embassies could of course be one place where immigrants can apply (they are already protected).
Also, to set up asylum-centers in refugee camps could easily fall under, say, the UN. It's about time the UN got a place back in the world scene regardless.
Best would of course to make these asylum-centers multinational... So instead of Sweden having a center, Norway one and so on... There is a shared system to accept/refuse asylum seekers. That way we can handle the cases where the people are, so they don't have to risk their life trying to flee here on their own by supporting criminal gangs who take a huge amount of cash to put you on a boat that is well past its "best before" date.
To send the European navies to control the Med Sea shouldn't be that hard to organize... Italy does some work already, other countries should help.... I mean, really, it's not like our navies have all THAT much other things to do...
Australia already have run a system like this... They got a whole lot of refugees coming in boats... As I understood it they just flat out stopped admitting them and sent them back... And the boats stopped coming.
It can be just as simple as that.
Eeeeh, like PVC said, you draw very big conclusions...
First of all, I don't see much need for military outposts... Embassies could of course be one place where immigrants can apply (they are already protected).
My point was indirect. If you want to catch the refugees at their origin, you have to go to the war zones, and I'm not sure how well-protected embassies are in war zones, especially when a thousand people line up every day. Also consider that a lot more people will come there, even the ones who cannot afford to travel to Europe. So you basically need a huge infrastucture and a lot of protection for your ambassador or you may end up with another Benghazi or something similar. I would also think that people can already apply at most embassies, but there might be reasons why they don't. For example that embassies in war zones tend to be evacuated or that for the people who want to kill them, an embassy would be a point where the victims can easily be intercepted before they get in. And who says that the ones who are denied (which according to most people here should be 90-99% or so, otherwise there is no point to the discussion), will not try to get in anyway and take to the boats after their denied request?
There is this Spanish enclave in Africa where people constantly try to climb the three fences even though the police is likely to beat them, even though the local military may raid their camps and burn their tents and even though the spanish police is said to often illegally send them back after they have made it onto Spanish territory. These people are really hard to convince that they shouldn't have nice things.
Maybe the solution is to send ou poor people there in order to teach them how to be poor and shut up about it?
Kadagar_AV
08-16-2015, 01:44
Blabber
First of all, no, refugees are typically NOT in a warzone or they wouldn't be refugees. See, that is kind of what refugee MEANS... Get it?
There are most often refugee camps in secure zones in the country at war, and in surrounding countries...
Secondly, if we accept asylum seekers OF COURSE we also transport them, doh!! I in no way suggest that we would grant them asylum and then ask them to make their own way there. That would be retarded.
Thirdly, that Spanish enclave in Africa with immigrants jumping the fence... See, that is EXACTLY why we should sink the refugee boats in the harbour, and escort them back if they left the harbour.
Not ONE of those boats should reach Europe, or we set a precedent for others to follow. And others WILL follow, desperately, like you yourself attest to.
Or we can continue to disease the Mediterranean Sea with dead Africans, is that your solution?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2015, 02:24
For those thinking what a bastard Kad is - dead Libyans in a fishing boat's hold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33946912
Stopping the crisis at source is the only longterm solution.
You know what, if we DO have to re-invade Iraq and Afghanistan and commit to them for another two decades it would be money well spent if a generation grew up where women were educated and men didn't get their hands cut off for stealing.
First of all, no, refugees are typically NOT in a warzone or they wouldn't be refugees. See, that is kind of what refugee MEANS... Get it?
There are most often refugee camps in secure zones in the country at war, and in surrounding countries...
So your point is to go to the refugees who go to these camps (and don't want to come here apparently) and offer them refugee status as well?
Okay, works for me.
I'm just not sure how that stops the ones who avoid those camps and try to get here. Oh right, turn around the boats. Who will turn around the boats?
Secondly, if we accept asylum seekers OF COURSE we also transport them, doh!! I in no way suggest that we would grant them asylum and then ask them to make their own way there. That would be retarded.
I never suggested otherwise, I asked what if the ones you turn down still try to come here on boats?- -but yes, turn around all the boats, see above.
Thirdly, that Spanish enclave in Africa with immigrants jumping the fence... See, that is EXACTLY why we should sink the refugee boats in the harbour, and escort them back if they left the harbour.
What if all the boat people go to the fence then? Build a concrete fortress?
Not ONE of those boats should reach Europe, or we set a precedent for others to follow. And others WILL follow, desperately, like you yourself attest to.
What if they find other ways? And again, securing such a long coastline is probably very expensive and requires a lot of effort, who is going to pay for this? We used to pay the local dictators to keep people away but apparently that doesn't work anymore since we bombed them away.
Or we can continue to disease the Mediterranean Sea with dead Africans, is that your solution?
Obviously, if that is what you derive from my posts here.
For those thinking what a bastard Kad is - dead Libyans in a fishing boat's hold: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33946912
Stopping the crisis at source is the only longterm solution.
You know what, if we DO have to re-invade Iraq and Afghanistan and commit to them for another two decades it would be money well spent if a generation grew up where women were educated and men didn't get their hands cut off for stealing.
Isn't that part of the problem? That we want to have our cake, eat it and not pay for it either? And then we just blame the desperate masses who arrive here for demanding a crumb that fell off our cake.
Kadagar_AV
08-16-2015, 03:00
So your point is to go to the refugees who go to these camps (and don't want to come here apparently) and offer them refugee status as well?
Okay, works for me.
I'm just not sure how that stops the ones who avoid those camps and try to get here. Oh right, turn around the boats. Who will turn around the boats?
I never suggested otherwise, I asked what if the ones you turn down still try to come here on boats?- -but yes, turn around all the boats, see above.
What if all the boat people go to the fence then? Build a concrete fortress?
What if they find other ways? And again, securing such a long coastline is probably very expensive and requires a lot of effort, who is going to pay for this? We used to pay the local dictators to keep people away but apparently that doesn't work anymore since we bombed them away.
Obviously, if that is what you derive from my posts here.
Isn't that part of the problem? That we want to have our cake, eat it and not pay for it either? And then we just blame the desperate masses who arrive here for demanding a crumb that fell off our cake.
Oh my...
04 in the morning, and I have a lot of work right now...
I will rip your post to shreds when I have time, but till then, might you want to reconsider?
Read what I wrote again with objective eyes and see if you wont answer some of those questions yourself.
Noncommunist
08-16-2015, 03:02
Sounds like Kad was arguing more for an Aid-Station-cum-Embassy than a military base, it's a bit much for you to make that jump.
Hi basic point is sound - importing refugees is liable to create more refugees as the fit able and useful will be most able to flee and subsequently resettle the countries in question will suffer an increasing "brain drain" which will, critically, cause their civil society to collapse along with their educational establishment. This is not a theory it's fact embodied in Somali and Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent even in countries like Pakistan and India.
The NHS runs on Indian doctors and even accounting for India's excellent education system and huge population that still means fewer doctors per capita in India. Now consider a country like Somalia, where pretty much all the professionals got out in the early nineties and settled in Europe or the US. True, some of them are now going back but everyone else has has two decades of virtually no society outside Somaliland and Puntland.
Given that many send remittances to their home country, a large diaspora in the west may enrich the developing country.
Kadagar_AV
08-16-2015, 03:32
Given that many send remittances to their home country, a large diaspora in the west may enrich the developing country.
Trickle-down economic works in your reality?
Oh my...
04 in the morning, and I have a lot of work right now...
I will rip your post to shreds when I have time, but till then, might you want to reconsider?
Read what I wrote again with objective eyes and see if you wont answer some of those questions yourself.
Right, you want to go to the African coast and just sink the boats there, won't that violate a lot of international laws unless the countries where you want to do that allow it?
And if you want to get fewer refugees, why set up outposts near locations where most of the refuges in the world are and take applications there? The number of total refugees may easily increase then.
Right, you want to go to the African coast and just sink the boats there, won't that violate a lot of international laws unless the countries where you want to do that allow it?
And if you want to get fewer refugees, why set up outposts near locations where most of the refuges in the world are and take applications there? The number of total refugees may easily increase then.
International laws are already broken as they should ask for asylum in the country they arive. If they want to go to Sweden or England, Embassies are for that. It's all pretty easy, a rope. Attach to ship full of refugees, and bring them back to the coast. Give them some food and water.
"Attach to ship full of refugees, and bring them back to the coast. Give them some food and water." And this resolved.... A part increasing the cost (and possibly the bonus of some sailors) to the navies involved?
Now, I can see another door for migrants. Foot. Hungary closes (what a joke!) its borders, well, you have still plenty of others entrances, even by sea, Monte Negro smuggling cigarettes with speed boats is one, or Croatia, Slovenia (through Bosnia)...
So, should we re-open shipyards? Mind you, France has 2 beautiful never used Mistral to sell, as France had to pay back the undelivered ships to Russia. And I don't see any other countries buying from a so much unreliable constructor, and no other countries rushing to buy them, we can probably use these ship in chasing migrants.
And don't forget to sent a fleet in the Black Sea.
So you still blame Africans?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-22/blame-the-rich-world-for-the-global-refugee-crisis
But hey, it's the communist Bloomberg thing, probably can't be trusted.
The article does so too, in part:
In Kenya, for example, refugees were channeled into the Dadaab camp, 60 miles from the Somali border. They are banned from working and left to live in tents supplied with food rations from the UN.
[...]
Uganda allowed waves of refugees from conflicts in Rwanda and Congo to settle in local communities, integrating service provision and encouraging the refugees to work. Only about one-third of the 385,000 refugees in the country are left in camps. That isn’t only a plus for the refugees: Merle Kreibaum of the University of Goettingen looked at data on consumption and access to services, including education in the areas where refugees settled. She suggests that local Ugandans have seen slight improvements in these measures because of the presence of refugees and the aid that has followed them.
"Attach to ship full of refugees, and bring them back to the coast. Give them some food and water." And this resolved.... A part increasing the cost (and possibly the bonus of some sailors) to the navies involved?
Now, I can see another door for migrants. Foot. Hungary closes (what a joke!) its borders, well, you have still plenty of others entrances, even by sea, Monte Negro smuggling cigarettes with speed boats is one, or Croatia, Slovenia (through Bosnia)...
So, should we re-open shipyards? Mind you, France has 2 beautiful never used Mistral to sell, as France had to pay back the undelivered ships to Russia. And I don't see any other countries buying from a so much unreliable constructor, and no other countries rushing to buy them, we can probably use these ship in chasing migrants.
And don't forget to sent a fleet in the Black Sea.
You don't need warships to attach a rope, anything with a small engine can haul a lot of weight in the water, a 15 meter boat with 40pk will do fine with the boats most come with, just needs to be big enough for suplies.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2015, 14:09
And if you want to get fewer refugees, why set up outposts near locations where most of the refuges in the world are and take applications there? The number of total refugees may easily increase then.
The answer to this is blindingly simple - you're going to refuse the vast majority of applications because you don't accept "refugees" you accept political Asylum Seekers. People forget that the whole point of political asylum is to protect the political opposition to a tyrannical regime, it is NOT a reason to allow mass migration.
We should not be allowing mass migration, end of, because it hurts our citizens and our first duty is to them and not to aliens. Look, a "refugee" who escapes Somalia to Uganda and has a place in a camp in Uganda should not then be allowed to enter the UK because he already has a safe place to live, it might be crap but the reality is that if we take him in he will likely go from living off UN handouts in that camp to living off UK handouts in a Council House and that, frankly, is not a beneficial change for anyone. He might as well wait in the UN camp until Somalia is stabilised and then he can go home and help rebuild his country.
Gilrandir
08-16-2015, 14:27
To send the European navies to control the Med Sea shouldn't be that hard to organize... Italy does some work already, other countries should help.... I mean, really, it's not like our navies have all THAT much other things to do...
Sweden's one does. Chasing Russian submarines along the Swedish rather idented coastline.
Kadagar_AV
08-16-2015, 14:49
I gave you fair warning.
So your point is to go to the refugees who go to these camps (and don't want to come here apparently) and offer them refugee status as well?
Okay, works for me.
Your view of refugees actually say a LOT about the ideas a socialistic german might have.
Your view:
There is a war here - better move to Europe and get a better life.
My view:
There is a war here - better get the **** out of this location and plead for my life.
I'm just not sure how that stops the ones who avoid those camps and try to get here. Oh right, turn around the boats. Who will turn around the boats?
People who avoid refugee camps and straight want to get here, most often do it not because their life is at risk, but because they can afford smugglers to take them to the "Heavenly West".
YOUR position only comfort the ones who pay criminal smugglers who set them on sinking ships, can you get that?
As to who will turn around the "boats"... Read what I already wrote? European nations have to help out to secure the coasts, as it IS a shared problem.
I never suggested otherwise, I asked what if the ones you turn down still try to come here on boats?- -but yes, turn around all the boats, see above.
Exactly, see above.
Sorry, but that line of you is just... Less than I expect when speaking to a fellow Org.
YES we should sink the ships in the harbour.
YES we should drag the ships who make it to open sea back.
Why?
A) To make sure people don't die in masses in faulty crafts as is how it is today.
B) To strengthen the point that ILLEGAL immigration is, well, illegal and will not be submitted.
What if all the boat people go to the fence then? Build a concrete fortress?
"Fortress Europe"... sure, I can live with that idea... I would rather live in a fortress than in some place where Africans can just walk in any day of the week and decide they want to live there and disrupt the society and culture around them...
What if they find other ways? And again, securing such a long coastline is probably very expensive and requires a lot of effort, who is going to pay for this? We used to pay the local dictators to keep people away but apparently that doesn't work anymore since we bombed them away.
They have found other ways, that is why Eastern European countries have started to build HUGE fences with barbed wire and all...
I don't think this is positive... We HAVE to just automatically send them back if they come here illegally. If you are against THAT you are efficiently pro:
A) Illegal immigrants.
B) Immigrants risking their life with bad odds just to get here.
The blood will be on your hands, Mr. Good Guy.
Isn't that part of the problem? That we want to have our cake, eat it and not pay for it either? And then we just blame the desperate masses who arrive here for demanding a crumb that fell off our cake.
I see it more as neither wanting chaos-cultures to influence my nation... Neither do I like that humans are dying because of shitty smugglers trying to bring them here.
I would like some god damned ORDER in the whole thingy, you might appreciate that at least.
The article does so too, in part:
:laugh4:
It blames Kenya for not aowing the refugees to work while they are there in camps.
You are aware that they are not allowed to work in Germany for example either?
The answer to this is blindingly simple - you're going to refuse the vast majority of applications because you don't accept "refugees" you accept political Asylum Seekers. People forget that the whole point of political asylum is to protect the political opposition to a tyrannical regime, it is NOT a reason to allow mass migration.
There might be a lot of legit cases for that in these camps. And even if not, the number of applicants will robably be huge. Currently there are tens of thousands who come to Europe but in these camps there are millions. IIRC only about 5% of the refugeees come to Europe, the rest stay somewhere in Africa or the Middle East.
We should not be allowing mass migration, end of, because it hurts our citizens and our first duty is to them and not to aliens. Look, a "refugee" who escapes Somalia to Uganda and has a place in a camp in Uganda should not then be allowed to enter the UK because he already has a safe place to live, it might be crap but the reality is that if we take him in he will likely go from living off UN handouts in that camp to living off UK handouts in a Council House and that, frankly, is not a beneficial change for anyone. He might as well wait in the UN camp until Somalia is stabilised and then he can go home and help rebuild his country.
I agree that taking in half of Africa is not a solution, but at the same time, I also think that we had part in creating the problem in the first place. And not only because France and Britain wanted to bomb Gaddhafi. African and Middle Eastern countries already house the vast majority of the millions of refugees from their areas, sometimes with UN help and their infrastructure is neither as strong as that of European countries, nor are they even responsible for the problems that made people flee in many cases. The question is, why can we bomb other countries and then force yet other countries to pick up all the refugees while we take none? Most of the refugees are fleeing temporarily and I never said we should give them all citizenship. What we could do is take some of them temporarily, just like countries in the area do, and stop screwing up other countries.
Yes, maybe Gaddhafi was an evil dictator, but we hardly helped that by supporting him for years. Now we bombed him and still complain about the result. Maybe it's this application of half-done "solutions" that just increases the amount of problems.
Who upplied weapons to Syrian islamist rebels and whose weapons and political vacuum did ISIS use to begin its reign of terror? Who originally trained Al Queda o fight the other evil soviets? The west keeps having the strangest alliances for the weirdest gains, lets companies go rouge in these regions in ways that do not help the locals build anything at all and the response is to blame the locals for not having beaten colonialization and the US hegemony in the first place or something like that. I'm saying that stance it very weird according to modern morals. If you're a Darwinist it might be "fair", but then you also shouldn't mind people dying in the Mediterranean or bankers doing what they want (which probably includes ruining African countries even further).
I gave you fair warning.
:laugh4:
Your view of refugees actually say a LOT about the ideas a socialistic german might have.
Your view:
There is a war here - better move to Europe and get a better life.
It is a view I can understand from their perspective, but as I said to PVC, I do not think taking in everyone who wants to be a football player for Manchester United is a viable solution to African problems in the long term. Your understanding of my view is questionable at best.
My view:
There is a war here - better get the **** out of this location and plead for my life.
Is that your view because you live in a safe country, grew up in a safe country and do not want so many refugees here?
Would you also have that view if you grew up in Africa, had no education, no job, no perspective for the future in your country and no idea how to change it AND grew up learning tht the only one who looks out for you is yourself and maybe your family?
It just doesn't seem genuine to say that you would act differently given that you have a completely different background compared to these people. And neither you nor they chose to be born in the place you were born.
People who avoid refugee camps and straight want to get here, most often do it not because their life is at risk, but because they can afford smugglers to take them to the "Heavenly West".
And people who undercut the prices of African farmers do it to make profit, not because they actually want to help Africa.
People who built leaking oil rigs in Africa do it because of "heavenly profits", not because their life depends on it or because they can't afford to repair the leaks. And the people who gave weapons to islamists also didn't quite do it because their lives depended on it. Colonialization didn't happen because we had to, but because we wanted "heavenly profits" from all the resources and slavery and so on. Many profitable businesses with oil, diamonds and other resources are still run by Europeans and the African countries get almost nothing from the profits. I think Viking was suggesting that the Africans just murder anyone who tries to prevent them from throwing out these companies and taking over their mines and oil rigs. What do you think? I honestly think it's a hard decision but we certainly aren't helping them by continuing to run these operations while we take in most of the profit.
YOUR position only comfort the ones who pay criminal smugglers who set them on sinking ships, can you get that?
What position of mine? Are you capable of explaining that?
As to who will turn around the "boats"... Read what I already wrote? European nations have to help out to secure the coasts, as it IS a shared problem.
Well, why don't they? Didn't Italy already complain and beg for help several times? And shouldn't e drop the EU anyway and just let each country go alone? Why is it Britain's problem if Italy is overrun by Africans? If all the borders were closed, they wouldn't even come to the channel. Why do the stupid Italians try to offload their problems on other countries? They should fix their neighbors if they have a problem, just like Kenya should. No?
Exactly, see above.
Sorry, but that line of you is just... Less than I expect when speaking to a fellow Org.
So are your condescending replies. You see, I gave PVC a much nicer reply because he gives respectful replies as well. Telling me I'm an idiot and then repeating what I already gave replies to is not a proper way to debate an issue.
YES we should sink the ships in the harbour.
YES we should drag the ships who make it to open sea back.
Why?
A) To make sure people don't die in masses in faulty crafts as is how it is today.
B) To strengthen the point that ILLEGAL immigration is, well, illegal and will not be submitted.
Kenya could close the UN camps with the same argument, but refugees are not illegal immigrants. Noone demanded that we give all of them ctizenship. It's almost as though you are fighting windmills.
They have found other ways, that is why Eastern European countries have started to build HUGE fences with barbed wire and all...
I don't think this is positive... We HAVE to just automatically send them back if they come here illegally. If you are against THAT you are efficiently pro:
A) Illegal immigrants.
B) Immigrants risking their life with bad odds just to get here.
Again, windmills. We are causing maybe 40% of the problems in Africa and the Middle East, yet are unwilling to temporarily house even 5% of the refugees. And you keep referring to Africans when the vast majority of refugees who arreive in Italy are from Syria and Afghanistan. "We" delivered weapons to Syrian rebels and I suppose we have nothing to do with why people flee from Afghanistan. :rolleyes:
The blood will be on your hands, Mr. Good Guy.
If it's as real as the giants you're fighting then it's probably not a big problem.
I see it more as neither wanting chaos-cultures to influence my nation... Neither do I like that humans are dying because of shitty smugglers trying to bring them here.
I would like some god damned ORDER in the whole thingy, you might appreciate that at least.
There we go again.
As for the order, how about we stop disrupting that? Once we stop bombing these countries or paying their dictators to afford a military that allows them to stay in power and support our companies in bleeding the countries dry, maybe we can begin blaming the problems entirely on them. But at the moment we want to bomb our cake and eat it, too.
For your consideration Husar, it doesn't adress everything you say, and often agrees with you, but mostly not http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dead-aid-by-dambisa-moyo-1519875.html Good read.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2015, 18:52
OK, well we intervened in Libya and that looked like it might go well but in the end it broke down into tribal and secular/islamist infighting. Then we refused to intervene in Syria and now we have Islamic State.
I think we should have been more hands on in the first few months after Gaddaffi fell, got the transitional government to let us station a small a number of NATO troops in the capital and in particular a disproportionate number of military engineers to quickly repair roads and other infrastructure to get people's lives back to something as close to normal as we could, as quickly as possible.
In any case, Syria gives the lie to the charge that Libya is "our fault" because there's every chance things could be worse there now had we not bought the high intensity war to a close quicker.
As regards turning ships back - we should be doing it as close to the African and Levantine coast as we can manage, legally, because that's the minimum distance travelled for these deathtraps and it offers the best deterrent.
Importing refugees en masse just imports all their social problems, we should be taking practical steps to stem the human flood and to stabalise the countries they're fleeing from. Historically we did that last part by propping up Tyrants, I think that was a mistake but it's hard to find another solution.
It blames Kenya for not aowing the refugees to work while they are there in camps.
You are aware that they are not allowed to work in Germany for example either?
This was the important bit:
Rather than force refugees into camps, Uganda allowed waves of refugees from conflicts in Rwanda and Congo to settle in local communities,
They were allowed to settle and didn't have to stay in the camps.
For your consideration Husar, it doesn't adress everything you say, and often agrees with you, but mostly not http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/dead-aid-by-dambisa-moyo-1519875.html Good read.
Sorry, just have tme to skim the article, may read it a bit closer later. From what I read so far:
I think Africa needs the right kind of aid where it is warranted. The current situation seems more like throwing money at the problem, hoping it goes away. This money can both undercut the local economy and also end up in the hands of people who make the problems worse. On the whole, Africa seems to be improving, as does South America, but both parts also need to address the social inequalities. It does not help much if the wealthy and the upper middle class raise the national average by becoming even richer while the poor still have nothing. There might actually be some trickle down (since it is also impossible to have anything trickle up when the poor have nothing), but if there is, it is apparently very, very slow.
I agree that we can't just invite all the poor people to "make them rich", we have to help fix the problems in their countries in a way that actually fixes them. Throwing bombs and money at them almost indiscriminately only seems to work in very few cases since it tends to hit the wrong people as well or result in unexpected/unwanted outcomes.
I think we should have been more hands on in the first few months after Gaddaffi fell, got the transitional government to let us station a small a number of NATO troops in the capital and in particular a disproportionate number of military engineers to quickly repair roads and other infrastructure to get people's lives back to something as close to normal as we could, as quickly as possible.
Perhaps, I'm mostly just saying that we are dealing with the consequences of our past mistakes and maybe we shouldn't whine as much or try to blame the people whose forefathers we turned into puppets and tried to make them willing slaves rather than foster a democratic process/culture, which they now lack.
In any case, Syria gives the lie to the charge that Libya is "our fault" because there's every chance things could be worse there now had we not bought the high intensity war to a close quicker.
Or maybe we supported the wrong people in both cases. Or maybe we shouldn't have supported the dictator in the first place. It depends on what you want. Gaddafi did stop the immigrants from taking off for the most part. On the other hand he was maybe not the best ruler for his country. And that there was no real political opposition in the country was amybe also the fault of us supporting him and his predecessor, who were both autocrats. Oh and before that they had a queen somewhere far away, not exactly a democratic or democracy-supporting "form of government" either. Maybe if these countries had just been trade partners for us, they would have developed in a completely different direction, and possibly have far more natural national borders than the often straight lines drawn in arbitrary places by their former overlords. But hey, let's not assume historical development could have any impact on how things are today, after all if you had not gone to school, you would have learned to read and write naturally.
It all depends on what you want though, do you want puppets who keep the poor in place or do you want them not to be poor? At the moment we seem to switch from the former to the latter, or rather, we try and find out it's not so easy. In a way we are also paying for our past mistakes. We can either whine about it or try to deal with it and improve the situation for the future.
As regards turning ships back - we should be doing it as close to the African and Levantine coast as we can manage, legally, because that's the minimum distance travelled for these deathtraps and it offers the best deterrent.
Importing refugees en masse just imports all their social problems, we should be taking practical steps to stem the human flood and to stabalise the countries they're fleeing from. Historically we did that last part by propping up Tyrants, I think that was a mistake but it's hard to find another solution.
Then what should Kenya or Jordania say? They house millions of refugees and don't seem to whine quite as much as Europeans currently do. I think that our preparations and the way we deal with the isue are the major problems. And I wouldn't give all refugees citizenship either. But look at Germany, in 1935 it was so easy to build huge barracks for people noone wanted in order to murder 6 million of them. Nowadays a few thousand already cause "problems". How about we build them some simple but effective shelters, house them there until we have maybe helped improve/secure their countries and then send them back when it is safe again? If they just fled for financial reasons, send them back as well and stop exploiting their countries or supporting those who keep them at bay with weapons supplied or financed by us. This may not fix everything but maybe after 50 years you can actually say the lack of development is their own fault because at least you're not supporting this lack to keep the wages in the diamond mines low or something.
The facts are there are not only emigrants fleeing from wars, but as well migrants wanted better life.
The reasons for people to go and risk their lives on flimsy boats, to go in countries they know don’t want them have to be addressed no?
So?
Wars: NATO is one of the biggest providers (if not the biggest). Like it or not, good reasons or not, that is the reality.
Oppression: In the fight against communists, Western Powers forgot that Nazism and Fascism were the best enemies of it. Or, more accurately, they turned blind eyes on the fact the ones fighting Communism were fascists (sometime limit to Nazism like in Indonesia, or Malaysia and the repression led by British SAS). In helping dictatorships to eradicate all what was “communist”, (definition going to students having Che Guevara T-shirt to unionist asking for pay rise), they first protected those as Saddam Hussain, Iranian Shah, Pinochet and others St Lazare and Franco. We are still supporting Saudis’ and Qatar… In killing all the lefties, we let a vacuum for the despaired, and this vacuum was filled by Religious. And because in this field, there are no borders and a strange understanding for all their against-basic-human-right, we helped the ones as ISIL and Al-Qaida to flourish.
Some might finally see that there are more Muslims fleeing the Islamic Paradise created by ISIL than ones who want to join.
You might say why these are not fighting the Religious Enemies. The answer is because we killed or helped to kill the potential leaders who might have done so.
Climate changes: Nobody speaks about this one. We have conferences after conferences about what we should do, but nothing happens.
So, how long must wait the populations whose lands are flooded every years for now 5 years, thanks to our industries and our greed (I shortcut).
California is now on its 4th years of drought. Being part of the USA helps, but in Somalia? Same conditions, plus war lords? Really? Emigration is the only way to stay alive.
You might built a new Chinese wall (which failed), or to make more ropes (made in Bangladesh anyway), put more borders, more wires, people who are dying will come.
Developed countries have to take their responsibilities and work on durable solutions.
And throwing back refugees in the sea or in the fire is not.
It's not an article Husar it's a review of a book. I would absolutily file it under essential reading. Author is from Africa, understands Africa, and is both a Harvard and an Oxford graduate.
It's not an article Husar it's a review of a book. I would absolutily file it under essential reading. Author is from Africa, understands Africa, and is both a Harvard and an Oxford graduate.
Works at Goldman Sachs, would probably tell you arsenic is good for your health.
Whilst there are merits in the argument, there are also flaws. Economy can only work if it is grown organically, if not, it ends up being like those ghost-towns in China where they build houses, shops and infrastructure, but there is nothing there to sustain a living environment.
So simply going to Africa, and building a town far removed from communities can fail hard, but working with the grass-roots, you can start to develop and advance an economy. Similarly by simply shipping over tons of food, it can make the rural community weak as they are unable to build and advance their farms, similar again can happen with charity shop clothes.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2015, 01:11
Husar, I'm not saying we have had no influence on these places, but in the case of North Africa and the Levant the people there have spent most of their history quasi-autonomous under a distant "Imperial" government of one description or another and, in fact, Europe has had far less influence than the Turks in the preceding centuries.
At the end of the day you either treat these people like adults or you don't. If you aren't willing to treat them as adults then you either leave them to it until they grow up or you invade and take over to "parent" them.
Also, Kenya and Jordan DO frequently complain about the refugees flooding over their borders - but that's their problem unless they and we want to work on a common solution.
I repeat, the first duty of a government is to its own people, then we should look to helping outsiders.
Works at Goldman Sachs, would probably tell you arsenic is good for your health.
Whilst there are merits in the argument, there are also flaws. Economy can only work if it is grown organically, if not, it ends up being like those ghost-towns in China where they build houses, shops and infrastructure, but there is nothing there to sustain a living environment.
So simply going to Africa, and building a town far removed from communities can fail hard, but working with the grass-roots, you can start to develop and advance an economy. Similarly by simply shipping over tons of food, it can make the rural community weak as they are unable to build and advance their farms, similar again can happen with charity shop clothes.
There is a lot of critisism as well as praise. I found it a good read because it's such a different take on things. I have my reservations as well but she is not someone to just dismiss {not that you do that, but some do}
Gilrandir
08-17-2015, 08:32
But look at Germany, in 1935 it was so easy to build huge barracks for people noone wanted in order to murder 6 million of them. Nowadays a few thousand already cause "problems".
You want those few thousands live under conditions good for 1935. Would you be satisfied with them?
I believe they have such conditions back in their home countries and they are one of the reasons that makes them flee in droves.
Developed countries have to take their responsibilities and work on durable solutions.
And throwing back refugees in the sea or in the fire is not.
Every time developed countries take the responsibility (it is called meddling) it turns into a mess, because they pursue their own interests (and that is natural).
Another choice is to let the others find their own course in life.
"Every time developed countries take the responsibility (it is called meddling) it turns into a mess, because they pursue their own interests (and that is natural).
Another choice is to let the others find their own course in life." Agree. But it is not natural. It is for the interests of the moment. And long term interest of Western World is to develop others countries. Short term is to bomb them. And when we disagree with their choice, we bomb them, or plot Coup, organise chaos etc.
Husar, I'm not saying we have had no influence on these places, but in the case of North Africa and the Levant the people there have spent most of their history quasi-autonomous under a distant "Imperial" government of one description or another and, in fact, Europe has had far less influence than the Turks in the preceding centuries.
Our influence was during the time where a lot of countries turned democratic, even Turkey got onto a democratic path, but the countries that were under colonial governments all did not, nd quite a few of their attempts to break free were silenced with lots of blood. My point was that this suppression prevented them from even developing a sense for democracy or national unity as they were on one hand not allowed to do so and on the ther hand, their foremost concerns were not about how to govern themselves after colonial rule but how to get rid of it in the first place. And when that finally happened, the natural tendency was to accept the strongman who prevailed through all of it instead of having elections. In Europe the whole democracy thing didn't develop out of nowhere either.
At the end of the day you either treat these people like adults or you don't. If you aren't willing to treat them as adults then you either leave them to it until they grow up or you invade and take over to "parent" them.
Yes, but telling them that they have to do this or that in order to get money from you that they desperately need or bribing their leaders is hardly treating them as adults. Treating them as adults may also mean treating them as equals. Unless by treating them as adults you mean to use your power as much as possible until they fight back or succumb to it.
Also, Kenya and Jordan DO frequently complain about the refugees flooding over their borders - but that's their problem unless they and we want to work on a common solution.
So if we crete a problem, then the result of it is their problem. If by that you mean all surrounding countries around a war zone could just not let any refugees in and watch them get slaughtered or starve at the border fences, then we can also just sink all the boats at sea and call it an act of charity as we end their suffering. I suppose this is not what you want though.
I repeat, the first duty of a government is to its own people, then we should look to helping outsiders.
I think the first duty of any human is to help other humans who are in need. And no, I do not give money to all the homeless people I see, but I expect my government to help where it can and make sure people stop being homeless (even a problem in Germany). I pay taxes so that the government can decide who needs the money. Of course I do not decide this alone, so I may not always like the result, such as bailouts for banks while other people have to sleep in the streets even though helping them would require only a fraction of the money spent on the banks.
You want those few thousands live under conditions good for 1935. Would you be satisfied with them?
I believe they have such conditions back in their home countries and they are one of the reasons that makes them flee in droves.
Way to misinterprete my point. Which was that our country is capable of quickly building housing for a lot of people if it wants to, even more so today than it was in 1935. Yet nothing like that is done while cities complain that they have no space for the refugees. Meanwhile we have a problem with increasing rents anyway as not enough new houses are built. There are students who have to take very creative housing because there are no open homes for them. The ones who profit are, in simple terms, the haves not not the have-nots. As usual.
Meanwhile we earned 100 billion € from the Euro-crisis while we still haven't paid a cent, only given guarantees for Greek debt. And the Greeks are often left to deal with the refugees as well. Is Germany a wealthy country that could afford to help out now or not? If yes, what is stopping us? And I'm still not talking about giving them all citizenship, just for reference.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2015, 15:09
Our influence was during the time where a lot of countries turned democratic, even Turkey got onto a democratic path, but the countries that were under colonial governments all did not, nd quite a few of their attempts to break free were silenced with lots of blood. My point was that this suppression prevented them from even developing a sense for democracy or national unity as they were on one hand not allowed to do so and on the ther hand, their foremost concerns were not about how to govern themselves after colonial rule but how to get rid of it in the first place. And when that finally happened, the natural tendency was to accept the strongman who prevailed through all of it instead of having elections. In Europe the whole democracy thing didn't develop out of nowhere either.
You're conveniently forgetting all the East Asian Colonial Possessions that developed democratic institutions. India is a good example of this, though the long-term goal was Dominion status alongside the likes of Canada and Australia the Indians forced Britain's hand, about two decades before Britain wanted to give them self-rule.
You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the present and the future.
[quote]So if we crete a problem, then the result of it is their problem. If by that you mean all surrounding countries around a war zone could just not let any refugees in and watch them get slaughtered or starve at the border fences, then we can also just sink all the boats at sea and call it an act of charity as we end their suffering. I suppose this is not what you want though.
I don't think we did create this problem, I think at certain points we have exploited certain groups for either economic or political reasons but the West did not create radical Islam or the tactic of suicide bombing, or encourage the adoption of Sharia.
Again - compare India - although a lot of India is very backward, and backward looking , we saw no mass-mobilisation of maniacal groups devoted to Shiva or Karli, did we? No, the demand was for democracy and self-rule and when these were granted they mostly stuck - in India.
Now consider Muslim Pakistan - it had the same start as India but now large swarthes of it's tribal areas near Afghanistan have devolved into warlords who claim religious sanction for their rule, the same as in the Middle East.
This is a cultural problem, and one which seems to latch on to Islam as a fig leaf for brutality much as Socialism and Communism did in the rest of the World but unlike the latter these extreme Muslim schools have the backing of God and seem to therefore have more staying power.
I think the first duty of any human is to help other humans who are in need. And no, I do not give money to all the homeless people I see, but I expect my government to help where it can and make sure people stop being homeless (even a problem in Germany). I pay taxes so that the government can decide who needs the money. Of course I do not decide this alone, so I may not always like the result, such as bailouts for banks while other people have to sleep in the streets even though helping them would require only a fraction of the money spent on the banks.
well, do you want your government to help the homeless in Germany or in Syria first? Should your government be taking in 750,000 refugees when it can't feed and house all its own people?
classical_hero
08-18-2015, 16:18
Just look at what is happening at Greece to see the magnitude of the problem. Being soft on these illegal immigrants is what is causing the problem. Greece can't afford to look after it's own people so how can they look after these people also.
Gilrandir
08-18-2015, 16:28
Just look at what is happening at Greece to see the magnitude of the problem. Being soft on these illegal immigrants is what is causing the problem. Greece can't afford to look after it's own people so how can they look after these people also.
Greeks can try and borrow some money from them (as a fee for shipping them forward to the West).
You're conveniently forgetting all the East Asian Colonial Possessions that developed democratic institutions. India is a good example of this, though the long-term goal was Dominion status alongside the likes of Canada and Australia the Indians forced Britain's hand, about two decades before Britain wanted to give them self-rule.
Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development and not seen as the same kind of subhumans?
If I'm not mistaken they did at least have a more educated upper class that was somewhat incorporated into the colonial rule while Africa had a stronger top-down approach.
You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the present and the future.
I don't think all African countries are presently treated as adults. The ones that are probably have pro-western governments where we basically treat the governments as adults so they keep their children/sheeple in check so that our companies can pay them badly to extract resources. Even in China and India a lot of people can work in western-backed sweatshops or be unemployed. IF we treated them as aduts, we would pay fairer wages for example. At least in Germany the trend seems to be the other way around, where even Germans aren't treated as adults anymore and are forced into lower-wage jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. The well-educated can so far often avoid this, but everybody else is treated like a child unable to make choices for themselves. This sort of behavior erodes belief in democracy, even in developed countries. The difference nowadays is just that companies seem to dictate more on how people are treated than governments do. There was this African government that couldn't afford to sue Philipp Morris so they had to let them do what they want for example.
I don't think we did create this problem, I think at certain points we have exploited certain groups for either economic or political reasons but the West did not create radical Islam or the tactic of suicide bombing, or encourage the adoption of Sharia.
Again - compare India - although a lot of India is very backward, and backward looking , we saw no mass-mobilisation of maniacal groups devoted to Shiva or Karli, did we? No, the demand was for democracy and self-rule and when these were granted they mostly stuck - in India.
Now consider Muslim Pakistan - it had the same start as India but now large swarthes of it's tribal areas near Afghanistan have devolved into warlords who claim religious sanction for their rule, the same as in the Middle East.
I do not remember claiming that the entire world would be democratic today if we had just stayed out of it. And of course the different cultures react differently to oppression. But maybe trying to force your ideals on people who will react with suicide bombings is the wrong approach for that culture. Or is it just that good cultures accept oppression and do what the oppressor wants and only bad cultures fight back?
This is a cultural problem, and one which seems to latch on to Islam as a fig leaf for brutality much as Socialism and Communism did in the rest of the World but unlike the latter these extreme Muslim schools have the backing of God and seem to therefore have more staying power.
This is also a cultural problem of us expecting that everybody we meet should love us and our culture and our rule or they must be bad people. Most of these muslim terror groups came into existence as a response to foreign oppression. What would have happened without this foreign oppression is a big what-if. How many suicide bombings happened before colonialization?
well, do you want your government to help the homeless in Germany or in Syria first? Should your government be taking in 750,000 refugees when it can't feed and house all its own people?
It's not an issue of can't....
The government made 100 billion € in profit from the greek crisis alone and increased weapon exports by a whole lot.
It could certainly afford to bail out banks, how much more does that cost than building homes for the homeless?
Germany is seen as the economic powerhouse of Europe and you eriously think the government could not afford to help the homeless if it actually wanted to?
I think it is more likely that they do not care and the homeless probably often don't vote anyway as it would require them to invest a lot more effort than someone who has a home and is automatically notified and registered. A cynic might also say they serve as a reminder for everybody else not to mess with the system too much.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2015, 22:49
Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development and not seen as the same kind of subhumans?
If I'm not mistaken they did at least have a more educated upper class that was somewhat incorporated into the colonial rule while Africa had a stronger top-down approach.
So you're saying Indian culture was more "developed" than African culture?
More literate and keener to Westernise at one point, perhaps, but by the first quarter of the 20th century Africa also had a well educated elite - or at least the elite had the opportunity to be well educated. Nelson Mandela was a Lawyer as well as a Marxist and a terrorist, for example.
Or is it just that good cultures accept oppression and do what the oppressor wants and only bad cultures fight back?
I'm happy to draw the line at "does not kill own people to make a point".
The Catholic PIRA are in that boat too.
This is also a cultural problem of us expecting that everybody we meet should love us and our culture and our rule or they must be bad people. Most of these muslim terror groups came into existence as a response to foreign oppression. What would have happened without this foreign oppression is a big what-if. How many suicide bombings happened before colonialization?
Before colonialism it wasn't possible to do suicide bombings and, in fact, I think you'll find that the modern Jihadist and suicide bomber only appeared after WWII as these countries gained independence.
It's not an issue of can't....
The government made 100 billion € in profit from the greek crisis alone and increased weapon exports by a whole lot.
It could certainly afford to bail out banks, how much more does that cost than building homes for the homeless?
Germany is seen as the economic powerhouse of Europe and you eriously think the government could not afford to help the homeless if it actually wanted to?
I think it is more likely that they do not care and the homeless probably often don't vote anyway as it would require them to invest a lot more effort than someone who has a home and is automatically notified and registered. A cynic might also say they serve as a reminder for everybody else not to mess with the system too much.
Well, everybody knows the current German government are a bunch of puritanical nationalistic prigs, so that's a bad example.
Kadagar_AV
08-19-2015, 00:49
Weren't those cultures at quite a different level of development...
With so much questionable content coming from you lately, let me just stop you at that very FIRST phrase of an otherwise long post.
Since you obviously now finally have accepted that different cultures are at different levels of development, may I ask you, what factors do you count in as being developed? What factors do you factor in as undeveloped?
So you're saying Indian culture was more "developed" than African culture?
More literate and keener to Westernise at one point, perhaps, but by the first quarter of the 20th century Africa also had a well educated elite - or at least the elite had the opportunity to be well educated. Nelson Mandela was a Lawyer as well as a Marxist and a terrorist, for example.
More literate and more technologically advanced was what I meant, of course a culture adapts to these developments. I'm not sure whether Nelson Mandela is a great example, I don't think black Africans were free to choose their future in South Africa when he started to appear publicly. Does his education mean that apartheid wasn't so bad after all?
Did this also happen in India?
http://revealinghistories.org.uk/africa-the-arrival-of-europeans-and-the-transatlantic-slave-trade/articles/the-underdevelopment-of-africa-by-europe.html
I'm happy to draw the line at "does not kill own people to make a point".
The Catholic PIRA are in that boat too.
Isn't "own people" a very relative term or do we have to define it along racial or national lines? And what about countries where many tribes or ethnicities ended up within a border against their will? Are they still their "own people" or not?
Before colonialism it wasn't possible to do suicide bombings and, in fact, I think you'll find that the modern Jihadist and suicide bomber only appeared after WWII as these countries gained independence.
And why is that so?
Well, everybody knows the current German government are a bunch of puritanical nationalistic prigs, so that's a bad example.
You have no homeless people in the UK?
I thought your way of fighting homelessness was to install spikes to get it out of sight.
Kadagar_AV
08-19-2015, 03:34
More literate and more technologically advanced was what I meant
I'll again stop you at the first phrase.
What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?
I'll again stop you at the first phrase.
What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?
That's hard to say, different regions developed in different ways, maybe more contact with other people. Maybe more natural changes, different natural resources. If people do not have access to iron for example, it's hard for them to develop steel and technologies related to it. The article I linked above mentions that they had gold and quite extensive trade and empires. It's not like they were not developing, just differently from other people. And you can't just think all of Africa was the same as Africa is also a diverse continent.
The Incas and the apaches also had completely different lifestyles that were adjusted to their surroundings, just like a lot of other people. The early high cultures of Europe all seemed to develop around the Mediterranean. It might be silly to dismiss natural influences.
What do you think?
No iron, my collection of African weapons must be fake than. Except it isn't
rory_20_uk
08-19-2015, 09:11
Also density of food, especially protein. It was too low in general to support a high enough population for development - things were too close to hand to mouth for too many to develop.
Perhaps rather than speaking of development which is very subjective, how about talk about desirability of a society?
~:smoking:
Gilrandir
08-19-2015, 11:12
What, in your view, made Africa fall behind when it came to being literate or technologically advanced?
I heard a theory that technological advancement was faster in areas of moderate climate, since too cold climate made the inhabitants think only of survival while too hot climate meant an easy access to food and consequently all attempts at improvement unneccessary.
As ever, everyone argues a load of nonsense and misses the point.
Who owns the world? Do I own England? Do I need the permission of a frenchman to go and live in France? Am I responsible for the government of the country I live in destabilising another country?
If a person decides to make the choice to try and make a better life for themselves on a different part of the planet, then how can I object? The issues created by this immigration are just administrative ones.
I heard a theory that technological advancement was faster in areas of moderate climate, since too cold climate made the inhabitants think only of survival while too hot climate meant an easy access to food and consequently all attempts at improvement unneccessary.Which explains why the innuit dominate the world and the Hong Kong and Singaporeans are a poor and miserable people.
Kadagar_AV
08-19-2015, 14:18
As ever, everyone argues a load of nonsense and misses the point.
Who owns the world? Do I own England? Do I need the permission of a frenchman to go and live in France? Am I responsible for the government of the country I live in destabilising another country?
If a person decides to make the choice to try and make a better life for themselves on a different part of the planet, then how can I object? The issues created by this immigration are just administrative ones.
Oh my... Are you being ironic, or are you really that... Well... Ideological?
Who owns your house or apartment? Would I need the permission from you, if I wanted to get in there to stay?
Even if you were ok with that, would you be ok with it after I raped your sister or mother or something?
As you argue, that would just be an "administrative" issue, no?
Greyblades
08-19-2015, 15:45
As ever, everyone argues a load of nonsense and misses the point.
Who owns the world? Do I own England? Do I need the permission of a frenchman to go and live in France? Am I responsible for the government of the country I live in destabilising another country?
If a person decides to make the choice to try and make a better life for themselves on a different part of the planet, then how can I object? The issues created by this immigration are just administrative ones.
Someone's showing a severe ignorance of the effects of unrestrained immigration.
The fact that you liken the situation to raping your sister is just bizzare.
And as for unrestrained immigration, that's plain nonsense.
You are presented with a problem of humanity and are responding like frightened chimps. Reacting in the most thoughtless, primal and fearful way. Being manipulated by scare stories and anecdotes rather than soberly evaluating the situation.
Greyblades
08-19-2015, 16:12
http://englishwithatwist.com//wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Blog_get_off_your_high_horse_by_alphonus-d32kb2z.jpg
No iron, my collection of African weapons must be fake than. Except it isn't
It was one generic example, and as I said, Africa is a very diverse continent. Wasn't Egypt more or less the first high culture that developed? Why did Europeans not overshadow the Egyptians at the time?
As for the debate Idaho started, there is a point to it. The borders in Europe work somewhat because they were created along lines people perceived as natural. Unfortunately that does not apply to the lines that the Europeans drew in Africa and the Middle East during colonial times, which just adds to the tension in these regions. Now you may complain that the Africans should just renegotiate these lines but then you may as well ask the US to renegotiate the border with Aztlán or all the people living in reservations if you think that's so easy.
I'm also not sure why the topic calls them illegal immigrants. If someone arrives in a European country and asks for asylum, he is not illegal but an asylum seeker until the validity of the request is determined. There are surely illegals here, but I haven't heard of any of them becoming rich or draining our welfare or getting free homes since you can't get any benefits if you're not registered. And at least for Germany the rate of rejected asylum requests is still somewhere around 50%, these people are sent back unless they can challenge the rejection in a court. There are actually people who check the validity of these requests and don't let people in who just want to be rich. May not be a foolproof process but some seem to think that we give everyone who arrives in Europe a car and a home. I know even people with a college education not from Africa, not criminal and very willing to learn the language, who seem to have a hard time staying in Germany legally.
Do I own England?
Nope. De facto, the British government does that. The British government is in turn indirectly controlled (owned) by the British people, of which you are a representative.
Nope. De facto, the British government does that. The British government is in turn indirectly controlled (owned) by the British people, of which you are a representative. You have chosen a legalistic interpretation but then have answered incorrectly. Britain is not owned by the British government. And I am not a representative of the British people.
Greyblades, please.
No idea what this is supposed to mean. You are suggesting that having empathy with other humans in desperate situations amounts to "high horse"? Strange. So I should be cruel, thoughtless, ignorant and reactionary?
You have chosen a legalistic interpretation but then have answered incorrectly. Britain is not owned by the British government.
No. As explicitly specified, the interpretation was de facto, not de jure. Crudely speaking, the British government is the entity that by far has the most control over Britain and can handle it a lot like they want to, hence they own it.
And I am not a representative of the British people.
It is to say that you are part of the aforementioned population, with voting rights.
No. As explicitly specified, the interpretation was de facto, not de jure. Crudely speaking, the British government is the entity that by far has the most control over Britain and can handle it a lot like they want to, hence they own it.
It is to say that you are part of the aforementioned population, with voting rights.
This is just nonsense. Sorry.
Kadagar_AV
08-19-2015, 23:28
This is just nonsense. Sorry.
Oh my...
I will just skip everything else and try to assist this individual. Nice guy as I am :)
Idaho, you have written a LOT of quite questionable content here... Would you mind re-starting this in a thread of your own, where you explain your world view?
I absolutely do not mean this as a diss, I am honestly interested in what you have to bring to the table, and right now it feels more like crumbs falling off of it..
So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see a thread where you state your view on open immigration. That line of thought is raised here in Sweden a LOT, and I would love to actually have a sit-down with an honest representative :)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-20-2015, 00:34
This is just nonsense. Sorry.
De Facto the British Government controls Britain, and we vote for the government (indirectly) when we vote for MP's.
I know you refuse to exercise your democratic rights on principle, but that's another topic.
Actually, De Jure the Queen owns Britain and it's Her Majesty's Government, so Viking is essentially correct whichever way you slice it.
What we're talking about here though is collective responsibility, the British, Swedish, German etc. people have collective responsibility for their countries and governments and part of that is the right and responsibility to restrict entry to the same for the good of the people at large.
In crude terms we don't usually allow convicted child murderers into the country because it's bad for the people here.
You and I live in a city of, what? 140,000 people now, of which thousands are recent immigrants from the Middle East and Pakistan, and by recent I mean the last decade or so. Well, Germany is projected to have something like seven times the population of our city enter this year as refugees, to say nothing of the "normal" influx of immigrants.
This is not just an "administrative" problem it's mass migration of a kind not seen in centuries, it's the sort of movement of people you have during the Hunnic invasions that toppled the Roman Empire, or the 30 years war, the sort of events which are associated with cataclysmic change on the continent.
That probably sounds utterly absurd to you, but if you had asked Flavius Stilicho in 395AD if he believed the WRE could collapse within a half century he would have told you that Rome had stood for a thousand yours and would stand for a thousand more.
It was one generic example, and as I said, Africa is a very diverse continent. Wasn't Egypt more or less the first high culture that developed? Why did Europeans not overshadow the Egyptians at the time?
As for the debate Idaho started, there is a point to it. The borders in Europe work somewhat because they were created along lines people perceived as natural. Unfortunately that does not apply to the lines that the Europeans drew in Africa and the Middle East during colonial times, which just adds to the tension in these regions. Now you may complain that the Africans should just renegotiate these lines but then you may as well ask the US to renegotiate the border with Aztlán or all the people living in reservations if you think that's so easy.
I'm also not sure why the topic calls them illegal immigrants. If someone arrives in a European country and asks for asylum, he is not illegal but an asylum seeker until the validity of the request is determined. There are surely illegals here, but I haven't heard of any of them becoming rich or draining our welfare or getting free homes since you can't get any benefits if you're not registered. And at least for Germany the rate of rejected asylum requests is still somewhere around 50%, these people are sent back unless they can challenge the rejection in a court. There are actually people who check the validity of these requests and don't let people in who just want to be rich. May not be a foolproof process but some seem to think that we give everyone who arrives in Europe a car and a home. I know even people with a college education not from Africa, not criminal and very willing to learn the language, who seem to have a hard time staying in Germany legally.
International law dictates that they must ask asylum in the country they arive, if they don't than yes they are illegal immigrants
You and I live in a city of, what? 140,000 people now, of which thousands are recent immigrants from the Middle East and Pakistan, and by recent I mean the last decade or so. Well, Germany is projected to have something like seven times the population of our city enter this year as refugees, to say nothing of the "normal" influx of immigrants.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/08/18/Germany-expects-up-to-750000-immigrants-in-2015/7691439911212/
7*140,000 = 980,000 <> 750,000.
The article also mentions that it's largely because other European countries do not come up to their duties. Maybe if they were properly distributed there'd be fewer ghettos and less impact on individual countries. Oh and 750,000 asylum seekers * ~0.5 acceptance rate = 375,000 who actually need to be housed somewhere more permanent and 375,000 people who are sent back. Even easier if actually fairly distributed across Europe.
De Facto the British Government controls Britain, and we vote for the government (indirectly) when we vote for MP's.
I know you refuse to exercise your democratic rights on principle, but that's another topic.
Actually, De Jure the Queen owns Britain and it's Her Majesty's Government, so Viking is essentially correct whichever way you slice it.
Once again incorrect. Basic UK constitution lesson:
The country is ruled by the Crown, not the Queen. The Queen is a person, the Crown is a political construct. Neither the Queen nor the Crown "own" Britain. Britain is divided into lots of little chunks owned by landowners. Neither the Queen nor the Crown owns my house. Voting has no bearing whatsoever on ownership - you are both getting completely side-tracked and confused.
Oh my...
I will just skip everything else and try to assist this individual. Nice guy as I am :)
Idaho, you have written a LOT of quite questionable content here... Would you mind re-starting this in a thread of your own, where you explain your world view?
I absolutely do not mean this as a diss, I am honestly interested in what you have to bring to the table, and right now it feels more like crumbs falling off of it..
So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see a thread where you state your view on open immigration. That line of thought is raised here in Sweden a LOT, and I would love to actually have a sit-down with an honest representative :)
I don't believe open immigration is always a sound policy. But what are the actual numbers on the current situation? How many people are moving from where to where? Why are they leaving their current countries, and why do they want to come to western europe?
My suspicion is that:
- There are legitimate reasons (humanitarian, political and economic) why they are leaving their countries
- Often the reasons are to do with western european nations being complicit in destabilizing their countries
- The current levels of migration are nothing unusual in historical terms
- The situation is being hyped up by politicians, news channels and newspapers to generate a story
- More immigration is happening in poorer countries where the impact is higher than in western europe
- Western europeans are merrily travelling/moving around the world and will reject any controls on this
- The wealthy are benefiting most from immigration, and yet are orchestrating the hate from working people against immigrants
There you go - some targets to shoot at.
Rhyfelwyr
08-20-2015, 11:23
Aren't most of the immigrants young men looking for work, and not families fleeing persecution etc?
This is just nonsense. Sorry.
No, but I gather you want to have a monologue.
- The current levels of migration are nothing unusual in historical terms
Too vague and generic to be meaningful - and out of context.
- Western europeans are merrily travelling/moving around the world and will reject any controls on this
Some might. That would be their problem.
InsaneApache
08-20-2015, 12:00
The fact that you liken the situation to raping your sister is just bizzare.
And as for unrestrained immigration, that's plain nonsense.
You are presented with a problem of humanity and are responding like frightened chimps. Reacting in the most thoughtless, primal and fearful way. Being manipulated by scare stories and anecdotes rather than soberly evaluating the situation.
I don't believe open immigration is always a sound policy. :laugh4:
So how many would you allow in? A thousand? Hundred thousand? A million? Ten million? A hundred million?
Please tell us, we are all ears!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-20-2015, 12:36
Once again incorrect. Basic UK constitution lesson:
The country is ruled by the Crown, not the Queen. The Queen is a person, the Crown is a political construct. Neither the Queen nor the Crown "own" Britain. Britain is divided into lots of little chunks owned by landowners. Neither the Queen nor the Crown owns my house. Voting has no bearing whatsoever on ownership - you are both getting completely side-tracked and confused.
We're just arguing because we know you're wrong.
The Queen and the Crown are only separate so that they don't have to technically re-hire all the civil servants when the monarch dies.
Aren't most of the immigrants young men looking for work, and not families fleeing persecution etc?
Nah, the motivation is free money, they don't even bother to lie. Not all say that, but a lot do
Many young Algerians try to leave Algeria for Europe by sea because they are...bored, apparently.
"Our harragas don't leave the country because they are poor or jobless…. even if that's what they say," he wrote in Le Quotidien d'Oran, the daily paper from Algeria's second largest city. "They leave because here, in this country, their lives are pointless, there's no room to dream, and worst of all, there's no fun, no laughter, no kissing, and no colour."
Risking death at sea to escape boredom (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33986899)
Nah, the motivation is free money, they don't even bother to lie. Not all say that, but a lot do
How would illegal immigrants get free money? Even as asylum seekers they get a bed, £17 a week in food vouchers and £10 cash for 3 years and are not permitted to work. If anyone wants to risk life and limb to live here in miserable and bored poverty, good luck to them.
Many young Algerians try to leave Algeria for Europe by sea because they are...bored, apparently.
Risking death at sea to escape boredom (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33986899)
This is the problem. People basing opinions on opinions. Meaningless article.
:laugh4:
So how many would you allow in? A thousand? Hundred thousand? A million? Ten million? A hundred million?
Please tell us, we are all ears!
The tory's nightmare. 100 million darkies swarming at the border.
It's nonsense. The numbers are in the thousands, not millions.
InsaneApache
08-20-2015, 16:38
The tory's nightmare. 100 million darkies swarming at the border.
It's nonsense. The numbers are in the thousands, not millions.
!00,000 in Greece so far this year and increasingly more every week.
So now will you answer my question or dodge it again as lefties are wont to do. Ala 'darkies'.
!00,000 in Greece so far this year and increasingly more every week.
So now will you answer my question or dodge it again as lefties are wont to do. Ala 'darkies'.
At least a few hundred thousand a year. More from countries we've had a hand in screwing up.
This is the problem. People basing opinions on opinions. Meaningless article.
I don't think you read the article. Algeria is not a particularly poor country.
The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Every year the politicians massage the information about how many "refugees" and "economic migrants" they are going to let in and every year the number grows larger and larger.
Western Europe is basically importing crime and Islam and screaming "fascism" to anyone whom has a dissenting opinion. Sweden probably has a solid 40 years before it becomes Somilia north.
The further slip into post war degeneracy continues.
Hysterical racist drivel. There has been no increase in the crime rate. But you aren't interested in the facts. They interfere with your narrative.
I don't think you read the article. Algeria is not a particularly poor country.
So?
So?
So they are trying to leave the country for other reasons - like the grass is greener syndrome.
So they are trying to leave the country for other reasons - like the grass is greener syndrome.
Humans are apt to make such decisions. I did it myself once and worked in Japan for a while.
InsaneApache
08-20-2015, 17:05
At least a few hundred thousand a year. More from countries we've had a hand in screwing up.
No. Pay attention at the back. Over 100,000 so far this year and increasing and that's just Greece.
InsaneApache
08-20-2015, 17:06
Humans are apt to make such decisions. I did it myself once and worked in Japan for a while.
Tell me. Did you sneak in or go through the official channels? Apples and oranges mate, apples and oranges.
No. Pay attention at the back. Over 100,000 so far this year and increasing and that's just Greece.
Yes... And?
Greece is smaller and poorer than the UK. We can take much more.
Tell me. Did you sneak in or go through the official channels? Apples and oranges mate, apples and oranges.
Because there were official channels.
InsaneApache
08-20-2015, 18:02
Greece is smaller and poorer than the UK. We can take much more.
Go on then, how many more?
On a self-sustainability, it would require the rest of Britain's resources just to fuel central London. But that would be a crap model to discuss since we haven't been able to self-sustain ourselves since the time of the Empire where we got the resources from other countries.
Though, there is something to consider, the actual sizes of the landmasses involved. Using the Peter's map, which is more accurate, the world looks more like this (http://www.exposingtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Peters-Projection-Map.jpg?b8522f).
Immigration is mostly a symptom. If we used resources to involve things in certain areas which are far less developed, there wouldn't be the same requirement.
On a completely separate note, I would like to see what life is like in New Zeeland, seems like a nice place to live.
even if the facts didn't agree with me, I would twist them for my own purposes. One only needs to look to see who rapes in Sweden to see multiculturalism and immigration is a failure.
Its not racist to object to the wholesale importation of the uneducated and unskilled. Doubly so when European countries plan for assimilation is throw money at them and don't interfere. America has a much better model. Like most things europe is very good a bungiling a sound idea
Eh, Sweden has somewhere around 10 million people or so, Europe has somewhere around 600 million, Sweden is not Europe.
I recently read that Poland for example accepts very few refugees, and they have around 38 million people in total.
In Germany, as I repeatedly pointed out, the people Fragony mentions are just rejected and sent back, only about half of the applicants are accepted. This is constantly ignored with the assumption that everyone who arrives here is actually let in. In reality everybody who is picked up is put into camps and kind of interned until the status is cleared. People have to present believable stories about the dangers at home, including details, it's more or less the same process as asking for refugee status in the US.
And if you want to complain about people getting in illegally and that the government should do more to stop that, I can only say Trump 2016!
I only log into this board once every 6 months to get depressed about how ignorant intelligent people can be. Logging off.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-20-2015, 19:45
At least a few hundred thousand a year. More from countries we've had a hand in screwing up.
That's not sustainable in the long run, we are already unable to support ourselves. In point of fact I'd be in favour of instituting a "Two child policy" where the state only gives you support for the first two children, after that they get free education and healthcare but the parents get no more money.
Hysterical racist drivel. There has been no increase in the crime rate. But you aren't interested in the facts. They interfere with your narrative.
Hardly, any statistic you care to track will show higher criminal activity among immigrant groups against the "host" group. There are some fairly simple and well documented anthropological reasons for this, it boils down to "us and them" behaviour which is wired into all of us. By importing lots of "them" en masse you immediately create social problems you then have to exert effort and resources to fix, and you can only fix it is the new people are willing to integrate.
A lot of Muslims aren't interested in integration with "Christians" so they become isolated socially and then their children feel ostracised, blame the host nation and become violent.
Just look at the makeup of Islamic State.
Because there were official channels.
You can, in fact, apply for a work Visa for the UK from Somalia - lots of people seem to just get on boats and then claim Asylum when they get here, though.
Kadagar_AV
08-20-2015, 22:50
The numbers are in the hundreds of thousands. Every year the politicians massage the information about how many "refugees" and "economic migrants" they are going to let in and every year the number grows larger and larger.
Western Europe is basically importing crime and Islam and screaming "fascism" to anyone whom has a dissenting opinion. Sweden probably has a solid 40 years before it becomes Somilia north.
The further slip into post war degeneracy continues.
*flabbergasted*
*shocked*
Today is my birthday... Cheers SFTS, one of my better birthday gifts I must say, thank you :)
<3
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2015, 03:29
I don't believe open immigration is always a sound policy. But what are the actual numbers on the current situation? How many people are moving from where to where? Why are they leaving their current countries, and why do they want to come to western europe?
My suspicion is that:
Why would anyone care about your suspicions? Personally I will just shoot them down because I care about other members on this board.
- There are legitimate reasons (humanitarian, political and economic) why they are leaving their countries
Huh?
Under what law is it OK to go to another country because of economic reasons?
- Often the reasons are to do with western european nations being complicit in destabilizing their countries
Actually certain cultures are like GREAT at destabilizing their surroundings all on their own.
Russians took Swedes as slaves some hundred years ago... So because of that I shouldn't get a job, nor fight for my nations survival and well being.
Is that really an excuse in your reality?
- The current levels of migration are nothing unusual in historical terms
We must have studied different classes then.
Last time we had this kind of immigration in Europe it lead to what is called the "Dark Age".
You know, because the Vandals and stuff...
What does "Vandal" today mean?
If you still have questions about this, I would recommend you to play this game called Rome TOTAL WAR Barbaric Invasion.
- The situation is being hyped up by politicians, news channels and newspapers to generate a story
The problems are real. You might want to continue living in some la-la land, but the cold hard facts are that immigration from certain cultures are extremely problematic to include in a western society.
- More immigration is happening in poorer countries where the impact is higher than in western europe
True, mainly because the neighbouring nations are close to the bad culture that created the fuss, both culturally and geographically speaking.
The correct answer to these issues is to hold the bad culture that made the fuss at arms length, but help them in any way we can when they humbly ask for help.
Importing the bad culture will NEVER be the answer to combat it.
- Western europeans are merrily travelling/moving around the world and will reject any controls on this
Westerners have been proved to accept controls if it raise their survival chance... Check airport security.
And why do we have that type of airport security? Bad politicians for a start, of course...
But let's also remember it is because we let Arabs fly on our planes.
- The wealthy are benefiting most from immigration, and yet are orchestrating the hate from working people against immigrants
Conspiracy theory much?
General hate against the wealthy?
NO ONE is a net winner from this immigration, rich dudes also have their daughter raped and their cars scratched... Difference is that they can afford the psychological help and car insurance. The damage is still done though.
I retract the point... SOMEONE is a winner from it... ISIS as an example... Right now we have several hundred "Swedish people" doing the usual nice Muslim thingy that ISIS does.
I'm so proud to pay taxes so that ISIS fighters can go back to Sweden to rest some before they have to go back and you know, make the world hell.
There you go - some targets to shoot at.
Fish in a barrel...
If you still have questions about this, I would recommend you to play this game called Rome TOTAL WAR Barbaric Invasion.
Dude, seriously? You're citing a Total War game as a legitimate source of information?
:lipsrsealed:...:sweatdrop:...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Dude, seriously? You're citing a Total War game as a legitimate source of information?
:lipsrsealed:...:sweatdrop:...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Owww you get the point. Historically mentioning the barbarian invasion isn't that odd a thing to say, it was a gradual thing long before Rome fell, Rome had already drasticly changed because of immigrants settling. Tensions between Romans and immigrants were high. Sweden is taking in WAY too many immigrants, from the most backward places of the world, and ethnic Swedes just have to deal with it.
InsaneApache
08-21-2015, 11:49
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-anti-immigration-sweden-democrats-are-now-the-no1-party-in-sweden-polls-show/
Gilrandir
08-21-2015, 13:38
Which explains why the innuit dominate the world and the Hong Kong and Singaporeans are a poor and miserable people.
I spoke of the initial stages of humankind development and all the nations (including the ones you bring into your example) are much later creations.
But if we discuss them, Inniut live in what refers to "cold climate regions" and the others have moved their from the north - the regions of moderate climate.
On a completely separate note, I would like to see what life is like in New Zeeland, seems like a nice place to live.
Watch The Lord of the Rings for a closer view at landscapes.
That, or watch 'Once were Warriors' for a healthy dose of reality
Idaho has good intentions. So do I by the way I am actually sheltering a homeless Somali refugugee right now. np
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-21-2015, 23:23
Dude, seriously? You're citing a Total War game as a legitimate source of information?
:lipsrsealed:...:sweatdrop:...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
In the end, Rome will fall - it always does.
The only question is "Will I live to see it?" and it's pure arrogance to believe you won't, that you and your children are safe.
What we are witnessing is increasing mass migration at a time when our societies are militarily, economically and socially weak. We are vulnerable to external pressure, we are not equipped to absorb the sheer number of people flooding across our borders and our societies could collapse in a few decades if we are not careful. Our horizens have already contracted over the last fifty years, the US is the only remaining power in our cultural Bloc, first Germany and then France and Britain have fallen into what may be perpetual decay.
We hem and haw over this new Caliph but do little to stop him when a hundred years ago we would have flattened him on general principle for being a barbarian.
Greyblades
08-22-2015, 00:20
Could have sworn we dont hem and haw because we can't do anything but because we don't care any more.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-22-2015, 00:57
Could have sworn we dont hem and haw because we can't do anything but because we don't care any more.
Apathy is a symptom of the decline, not a cause.
We would hem and haw considerably less if if we had HMS Vanguard and her battlegroup to just sit off the Levantine Coast and blow stuff up.
I am not ashamed to say that the thought of half a dozen Vanguard-Class Battleships delivering righteous British correction to this Caliph and ungodly hordes sets my heart aflutter much like a debutante at her coming out.
Remember, despite what your mother may have told you, Aircraft Carriers are not a measure of Naval Supremacy.
Apathy is a symptom of the decline, not a cause.
We would hem and haw considerably less if if we had HMS Vanguard and her battlegroup to just sit off the Levantine Coast and blow stuff up.
And all the innocent people with him?
A hundred years ago you would have sent boots on the ground to dislodge him and sent a lot of condolences to crying mothers for the next 50 years or more. Wasn't the latter the reason that everybody left Afghanistan to that other caliph?
We have plenty of experience with boots here at least
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-22-2015, 10:01
And all the innocent people with him?
A hundred years ago you would have sent boots on the ground to dislodge him and sent a lot of condolences to crying mothers for the next 50 years or more. Wasn't the latter the reason that everybody left Afghanistan to that other caliph?
As opposed to all the letters of condolence we send to all the Yazadi women after they were raped.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 16:51
Dude, seriously? You're citing a Total War game as a legitimate source of information?
:lipsrsealed:...:sweatdrop:...:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
From that long post of mine, where I more or less refuted each and every point you had made... Your only comment is that I mentioned a TW game on a TW forum?
It was more used to show your lack of understanding, than as a legitimate source, surely you must have got that?
You had written:
- The current levels of migration are nothing unusual in historical terms
That is just plain wrong. You for some reason, political agenda or just lack of knowledge, try to normalize the MASSIVE immigration we are seeing.
Last we had even comparable numbers of immigration to Europe, it caused the fall of the first democratic(ish-prototype) empire, caused widespread degeneration, and generally resulted in what is called the "Dark Ages".
So, well, get your facts straight.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 18:13
To anyone who is against my idea to sink the damn boats in the harbour before they set out, and drag any boats we find back to Africa...
Today I heard there was some sort of new record, with 18 ships/boats needing help... The largest had around 350 people on board...
To those who dislike my ideas, what would your own answers be? It's easy to criticize ideas you know, but why don't you come up with something better?
The situation we have no is not good for ANYONE, not us in Europe, nor them in Africa.
Something needs to be done, and fast. Just look at Macedonia currently, Police and Military having to show shock grenades and shoot rubber bullets to try and control the tide of immigrants...
And yet it's not enough to stop them, thousands still make it through a day...
I mean, I get it, they want to live in the west. I also wouldn't want to live in Africa... But at some point you have to agree that only Africa can solve African problems. We should help them, sure.
But the solution is not to move the African population here.
To anyone who is against my idea to sink the damn boats in the harbour before they set out, and drag any boats we find back to Africa...
Today I heard there was some sort of new record, with 18 ships/boats needing help... The largest had around 350 people on board...
To those who dislike my ideas, what would your own answers be? It's easy to criticize ideas you know, but why don't you come up with something better?
The situation we have no is not good for ANYONE, not us in Europe, nor them in Africa.
Something needs to be done, and fast. Just look at Macedonia currently, Police and Military having to show shock grenades and shoot rubber bullets to try and control the tide of immigrants...
And yet it's not enough to stop them, thousands still make it through a day...
I mean, I get it, they want to live in the west. I also wouldn't want to live in Africa... But at some point you have to agree that only Africa can solve African problems. We should help them, sure.
But the solution is not to move the African population here.
Macedonia, Africans? The ones storming Macedonia are mostly Syrians. Most of the Africans go to Italy and Spain, not to Greece.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/europe-macedonia-migrant-crisis/
Amid scenes of misery, thousands of migrants -- most of them fleeing Syria's bitter conflict -- remained stranded Saturday in a no-man's land on the border between northern Greece and Macedonia.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34026114
Should we give them guns and send them back to Syria to fix their country?
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 20:12
Macedonia, Africans? The ones storming Macedonia are mostly Syrians. Most of the Africans go to Italy and Spain, not to Greece.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/22/europe/europe-macedonia-migrant-crisis/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34026114
Should we give them guns and send them back to Syria to fix their country?
Yepp, most are Syrians... And I honestly don't want those migration hordes lose in the society around me either...
You still just bitch about other peoples thoughts, how would you solve it?
To be quite frank, we could take every white European and move him to Africa, and then take all black/Arabic Africans and move them to Europe...
Infrastructure and everything intact as it is today.
And let's face it, a hundred years later we would have a fully functional Africa and a Europe gone to hell.
So again Husar, what do you argue would be a better way to solve it?
I say, do all we can NOT to let these types of people into functional cultures, and do our best to help them sort out their own cultural issues.
You propose... ... ... ... ... ... ??
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-22-2015, 21:25
It's worth pointing out that many of the Syrians have gone to Turkey, then Greece, then Macedonia then into Western Europe via the Balkans.
At some point there they must have stopped being refugees and become economic migrants.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 21:30
It's worth pointing out that many of the Syrians have gone to Turkey, then Greece, then Macedonia then into Western Europe via the Balkans.
At some point there they must have stopped being refugees and become economic migrants.
Add that they themselves say:
"We don't understand why they will not let us in!! We will not stay, we want to get to germany or sweden!!"
You propose... ... ... ... ... ... ??
How about you read what I proposed?
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 23:08
How about you read what I proposed?
You have not proposed ****. You gave a one-liner if even that, and ended it with a questionmark...
Should we give them guns and send them back to Syria to fix their country?
Is that your width and depth of argumentation?
You have not proposed ****. You gave a one-liner if even that, and ended it with a questionmark...
Is that your width and depth of argumentation?
I'm sorry for you. It seems that there is nothing I can do. :shrug:
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2015, 23:50
I'm sorry for you. It seems that there is nothing I can do. :shrug:
Sure is, you can explain what solution to this crisis you find best.
Instead of the usual bitching and moaning from people who dislike others ideas but have absolutely NOTHING to bring to the tables themselves.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 00:08
Sure is, you can explain what solution to this crisis you find best.
Instead of the usual bitching and moaning from people who dislike others ideas but have absolutely NOTHING to bring to the tables themselves.
You talk about width and depth to an argument, but propose seriously to any EU country to actually throw out refugees and watch the reaction. Even poop would flush slower.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 00:23
You talk about width and depth to an argument, but propose seriously to any EU country to actually throw out refugees and watch the reaction. Even poop would flush slower.
No.
My suggestion has been to sink the ships before they set out to save lives...
It has also been to drag every ship we find back to where they set off.
It has also been to set up centers in the actual refugee camps where people can apply for legal immigration status to Europe.
It has also been to then of course safeguard their travel here would they be accepted.
Reading comprehension much?
Now, what do you bring to the table? What is your idea that would be better to stem this human crisis?
Or was it just YET ANOTHER bitching/moaning post without an idea of your own? I mean, if so you could have just let Husar handle it for ya, no?
Reading comprehension much?
Coming from the guy who can't find my argument.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 00:32
Coming from the guy who can't find my argument.
And it was? You could at least have given the #postcount, this is 192.
Or was it when you said OTHER countries should take their responsibility to accept Africans and Arabs?
What if they don't want to wreck their home nations?
I mean... If Poland HATE the idea of immigrants from Africa/Middle East, we can't exactly FORCE them to accept them...
Specially when we see what has happened to the nations who has accepted them...
Look at Sweden we LEAD the mass immigration league...
And now we have:
* Schools that are a joke.
* Swedish girls being mass/assault raped left and right.
* No housing even for our own.
* Mass unemployment.
* A wrecked wellfare system.
* Wrecked national infrastructure.
* Wrecked general security.
55 zones the police gave up on as the Africans and Arabs have taken them over to an extent where the police can not guarantee normal functions of society to work...
And your answer is to tell Poland and others to do what we have done?
Sorry mate, they are smarter than you.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 00:32
No.
My suggestion has been to sink the ships before they set out to save lives...
It has also been to drag every ship we find back to where they set off.
It has also been to set up centers in the actual refugee camps where people can apply for legal immigration status to Europe.
It has also been to then of course safeguard their travel here would they be accepted.
Reading comprehension much?
Now, what do you bring to the table? What is your idea that would be better to stem this human crisis?
Or was it just YET ANOTHER bitching/moaning post without an idea of your own? I mean, if so you could have just let Husar handle it for ya, no?
I'm glad its just a suggestion. The better idea is already in motion, and some of these refugee cases are rejected, with Germany the lowest at 15% rejections, because the processes in place is complex and they probably thought it out far before some dude on the internet did.
And it was? You could at least have given the #postcount, this is 192.
If your Swedish culture is this lazy nowadays, it's not surprising that your country is doing so bad.
You come to a thread, half of which you haven't read, play the clever guy and throw around completely baseless insults because you're too lazy to check the validity of what you say even within this thread.
You seem like an economic refugee in this thread, we should send you back to where you came from.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 00:55
And it was? You could at least have given the #postcount, this is 192.
Or was it when you said OTHER countries should take their responsibility to accept Africans and Arabs?
What if they don't want to wreck their home nations?
I mean... If Poland HATE the idea of immigrants from Africa/Middle East, we can't exactly FORCE them to accept them...
Specially when we see what has happened to the nations who has accepted them...
Look at Sweden we LEAD the mass immigration league...
And now we have:
* Schools that are a joke.
* Swedish girls being mass/assault raped left and right.
* No housing even for our own.
* Mass unemployment.
* A wrecked wellfare system.
* Wrecked national infrastructure.
* Wrecked general security.
55 zones the police gave up on as the Africans and Arabs have taken them over to an extent where the police can not guarantee normal functions of society to work...
And your answer is to tell Poland and others to do what we have done?
Sorry mate, they are smarter than you.
Oh my a hot load of BS:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth
Edit: Whats even more laughable is the idea of a minority of like literally single number percentile wresting control of Europe, the very Europe with advanced economies, functional democracies, powerful militaries and influence, from the majority.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 00:58
Number of reported rapes, a total in 1975: 768 of which 118 "assault rapes"
Number of reported rapes, totaling 1995: 1707 of which 289 "assault rapes"
Number of reported rapes, totaling 2014: 6697 of which 854 "assault rapes"
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 1975: 21,518
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 1995: 54,333
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 2014: 83,324
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 1975: 170
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 1995: 643
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 2014: 792
The number of reported violent crime, total year 1975: 27016
The number of reported violent crime, total year 1995: 66131
The number of violent crimes reported, a total of 2014: 108,071
Number of ghettos 1975 - 0
Number of ghettos 2015 - 55
Ranking in the PISA test before? Top 3 world.
Ranking now - Somewhere tied with Ecuador last I checked.
Number of Africans and Arabs chaosing 1975 - next to none.
Number of Africans and Arabs chaosing 2015 - uncountable.
Sure, you have to adjust for population growth, from around 8mil to 9,5mil between... So 15-20%.
As we have negative birth numbers (or had, Africans and Arabs breeds like crazy and in a few generations will outnumber native Swedes, 5 children is still standard in Africa last I checked), you can basically point to the rise in crime and drop everywhere else solely towards having accepted people from trash cultures.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:04
Number of reported rapes, a total in 1975: 768 of which 118 "assault rapes"
Number of reported rapes, totaling 1995: 1707 of which 289 "assault rapes"
Number of reported rapes, totaling 2014: 6697 of which 854 "assault rapes"
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 1975: 21,518
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 1995: 54,333
The number of reported assault cases, including rough in 2014: 83,324
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 1975: 170
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 1995: 643
The number of reported murder / manslaughter trial, a total of 2014: 792
The number of reported violent crime, total year 1975: 27016
The number of reported violent crime, total year 1995: 66131
The number of violent crimes reported, a total of 2014: 108,071
Number of ghettos 1975 - 0
Number of ghettos 2015 - 55
Ranking in the PISA test before? Top 3 world.
Ranking now - Somewhere tied with Ecuador last I checked.
Number of Africans and Arabs chaosing 1975 - next to none.
Number of Africans and Arabs chaosing 2015 - uncountable.
Sure, you have to adjust for population growth, from around 8mil to 9,5mil between... So 15-20%.
As we have negative birth numbers (or had, Africans and Arabs breeds like crazy and in a few generations will outnumber native Swedes, 5 children is still standard in Africa last I checked), you can basically point to the rise in crime and drop everywhere else solely towards having accepted people from trash cultures.
You heard it here first folks, tiny minorities have taken over Sweden. Abandon all hope.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:07
If your Swedish culture is this lazy nowadays, it's not surprising that your country is doing so bad.
You come to a thread, half of which you haven't read, play the clever guy and throw around completely baseless insults because you're to lazy to check the validity of what you say even within this thread.
You seem like an economic refugee in this thread, we should send you back to where you came from.
Maybe you missed my edit? And you still just bitch and moan.
Oh my a hot load of BS:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth
Yeah, you have no idea what you talk about.
There ARE 55 zones in Sweden, according to the Swedish police in their last report, where they can no longer guarantee the basic security.
IE, ambulances need police escort to go in, open shootings on the streets, hand grenades flying left and right... I mean, one part of Sweden have had 9 or 10 hand grenade bombings just this last few weeks..
Only yesterday we had stone throwing (massive) at policemen in the same area where they also tried to burn down a police department, and also set of an explosive next to a police car with police in it... This simultaneously....
You talk out of your behind.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
/thread
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:13
You heard it here first folks, tiny minorities have taken over Sweden. Abandon all hope.
No, but the 15-20% of the population that make up immigrants from trashy cultures along with their kids (and of course the illegal immigrants not registered), have taken over quite some areas...
They have also absolutely sky-rocketed the criminal statistics in other areas...
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:15
Funnier still, the Swedish reports do not list religion of the perpetrators, or their ethnic background, just the fact that they were either born in Sweden or not, something like the majority of the rapes in Sweden are committed by people born in Sweden, this is a natural fact in any country and not just Sweden.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:16
Maybe you missed my edit? And you still just bitch and moan.
Yeah, you have no idea what you talk about.
There ARE 55 zones in Sweden, according to the Swedish police in their last report, where they can no longer guarantee the basic security.
IE, ambulances need police escort to go in, open shootings on the streets, hand grenades flying left and right... I mean, one part of Sweden have had 9 or 10 hand grenade bombings just this last few weeks..
Only yesterday we had stone throwing (massive) at policemen in the same area where they also tried to burn down a police department, and also set of an explosive next to a police car with police in it... This simultaneously....
You talk out of your behind.
I'm gonna have to go with the Journalistic Integrity of a major news publication over some dude on the internet, I'm sorry dude on the internet for your loss :(
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:22
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
/thread
1. That BBC article is wrong. It makes it look like 25 rapes would be reported if your husband raped you 25 times before the woman went to the police. That's not the case, the reporter must have misunderstood something.
Yes, the court would hear the testimony of the 25 times and it might impact on his sentence, but it's still ONE man being reported for having raped. Get the difference?
2. How can you close the thread without even looking at assault cases and the others?
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:26
1. That BBC article is wrong.
I'll wait until they retract the article before ruling it out. If they are wrong, i'm sure a heroic individual such as yourself will be able to correct them.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:30
Funnier still, the Swedish reports do not list religion of the perpetrators, or their ethnic background, just the fact that they were either born in Sweden or not, something like the majority of the rapes in Sweden are committed by people born in Sweden, this is a natural fact in any country and not just Sweden.
They stopped doing that to combat the spreading racism.
But you are still talking out of your behind.
It was several years ago that the immigrants started to commit the majority of rapes. So you are not even right on your basic assumptions.
So, 15-20% of the men commit more than 50% of the rapes....
Then, we must remember that some immigrant groups actually are under-represented, Is it even strange?
[snipped]
1. That BBC article is wrong.
No you're wrong. Apparently you do not understand what the article is about.
Prove that your statistic is based on court sentences and not police reports.
Also prove the connection between your statistic and immigration.
Then show that there are no other possible factors that could be rsponsible for the statistical increase over time.
And by prove I mean with sources, the BBC article has experts as sources, you have nothing but copy-pasted numbers that you may have found under some someone's pillow for all I know.
2. How can you close the thread without even looking at assault cases and the others?
How could you post that reply after I closed the thread?
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:36
I'm gonna have to go with the Journalistic Integrity of a major news publication over some dude on the internet, I'm sorry dude on the internet for your loss :(
I thought you would know it already, were you Norwegian as you claim.
The source is the police themselves...
Article in English:
http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-sweden/
Are you really this ideologically driven?
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:38
snip
More unverified garbage doesn't really help your case K-man. You probably want to back it up with actual mainstream sources like Husar is doing, and not with racist garbage websites that do the thinking for you.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 01:41
I thought you would know it already, were you Norwegian as you claim.
The source is the police themselves...
Article in English:
http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-sweden/
Are you really this ideologically driven?
A blog on the internet, versus a major journalistic publication, i wonder who to trust ... wait a minute.
I thought you would know it already, were you Norwegian as you claim.
The source is the police themselves...
Article in English:
http://swedenreport.org/2015/05/18/police-yes-there-are-no-go-zones-in-sweden/
Are you really this ideologically driven?
That's a policing problem/badly implemented immigration/policing policy.
Might have something to do with Swedish people not being very welcoming as well.
http://www.swedensucks.com/antisocial-culture.html
snip
See? I always said you're a racist...
Every time you deride a "culture" it's just another thinly veiled racist statement.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 01:58
Husar, you miss the point.
It is reported crime I have quoted, but no, one guy raping a woman 400 times is still not reported as 400 crimes there, but one.
Convictions more or less mirror these statistics.
Also:
Also prove the connection between your statistic and immigration.
Then show that there are no other possible factors that could be rsponsible for the statistical increase over time.
Are you trolling or something?
I have seen what Sweden was like before immigration, and I have seen what it is like now. All the statistical numbers presented WHEREVER you look still support it.
Do I need to PROVE that there are absolutely no other factors (hello alien overmind) before I can say that Sweden has turned to shit since we started with this immigration programme?
Everything is down. EVERYTHING.
School results, criminal statistics, BNP/capita, the pension system, the health care, the infrastructure, the....
The list goes on.
Do I really need to PROVE that there can be no other variables, before stating that immigration is a HUGE damn variable...
I mean, we now have more policemen than ever, with 3 private security contractors for every policeman... And crime is STILL going up. Shouldn't we be way safer instead?
So no, I will never be able to prove, nor do I think, that no other factors are involved.
But with that said it has still been **** to move so many Africans and arabs to Sweden.
Get it now?
L-E,
More unverified garbage doesn't really help your case K-man. You probably want to back it up with actual mainstream sources like Husar is doing, and not with racist garbage websites that do the thinking for you.
The stats are from BRÅ... www.bra.se
They are Swedens official crime center for statistics. Official enough?
Feel free to cross reference, the site is also in English and you will find the numbers are correct.
Feel free to cross reference.
Husar, you miss the point.
It is reported crime I have quoted, but no, one guy raping a woman 400 times is still not reported as 400 crimes there, but one.
Convictions more or less mirror these statistics.
I got that you're a racist, no need to explain that or that you still have no proof for your claims.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 02:07
A blog on the internet, versus a major journalistic publication, i wonder who to trust ... wait a minute.
First thing I could find in English... It links you on to sources as well, so I don't see the problem.
The 55 zones where the police has lost control was an official report from the police, and it was run in most media here... Follow the links.
That's a policing problem/badly implemented immigration/policing policy.
Might have something to do with Swedish people not being very welcoming as well.
http://www.swedensucks.com/antisocial-culture.html
Yes, of course it's Swedens fault...
We just accept more than anyone else in Europe, we give them free apartments and money from the state if they dont get a job... They have free health and dental care, they get full education... We let them keep their religion and have free classes to learn Swedish...
OH THE HORROR!!!! I SEE IT NOW!!!
No wonder they are pissed at us and want revenge on the society that gave them shelter from a war.
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
That was the most absurd thing I have read yet on these boards... Sig worthy material, right there.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 02:07
The stats are from BRÅ... www.bra.se
They are Swedens official crime center for statistics. Official enough?
Feel free to cross reference, the site is also in English and you will find the numbers are correct.
Feel free to cross reference.
Funny how that works now, please prove your claims, i'm not the one making the claim.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2015, 02:09
A blog on the internet, versus a major journalistic publication, i wonder who to trust ... wait a minute.
Original Source - http://fof.se/tidning/2015/5/artikel/darfor-okar-de-kriminella-gangens-makt
According to Swedish Wikipedia it's a Scientific Journal published ten times a year run by a Non-Profit Organisation.
Admittedly I'm running this through Google translate with a little Medieval-English-Fu but I see no indication the original article is from a hack publication and it appears to be talking about what Kad is describing, grenades and all.
Addendum - you'll note the above is a Swedish source talking about Sweden whilst your source is an American one talking about Europe generally.
That's a policing problem/badly implemented immigration/policing policy.
Might have something to do with Swedish people not being very welcoming as well.
http://www.swedensucks.com/antisocial-culture.html
Absolutely right - it was stupid of the Swedish government to accept so many people so quickly, allow them all to clump together and assume they would become good socialists.
No stop trolling Kad and re-state your position formally like a good Backroomer because I have no idea what you're on about at this point and if it's so simple you can do the gentlemanly thing and explain it rather than ask us to wade through seven pages. Whatever else you can say about Kad's position he's been entirely upfront about it.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 02:12
Ok, now you are just being stupid.
You want me to prove that the official Swedish organization to handle these statistics, can act as proof?
What else would you recommend?
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 02:21
Original Source - http://fof.se/tidning/2015/5/artikel/darfor-okar-de-kriminella-gangens-makt
According to Swedish Wikipedia it's a Scientific Journal published ten times a year run by a Non-Profit Organisation.
Admittedly I'm running this through Google translate with a little Medieval-English-Fu but I see no indication the original article is from a hack publication and it appears to be talking about what Kad is describing, grenades and all.
Addendum - you'll note the above is a Swedish source talking about Sweden whilst your source is an American one talking about Europe generally.
Absolutely right - it was stupid of the Swedish government to accept so many people so quickly, allow them all to clump together and assume they would become good socialists.
No stop trolling Kad and re-state your position formally like a good Backroomer because I have no idea what you're on about at this point and if it's so simple you can do the gentlemanly thing and explain it rather than ask us to wade through seven pages. Whatever else you can say about Kad's position he's been entirely upfront about it.
Do you mean the link you just posted? because his english link was definitely some sort of biased blog. Also the bloomberg article is interesting because it takes a stab at all of them as opposed to just Sweden.
Furthermore, the article i posted debunks the articles he posted, and it uses very clear language, calling it false.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 02:24
Ok, now you are just being stupid.
You want me to prove that the official Swedish organization to handle these statistics, can act as proof?
What else would you recommend?
Yes, because as stupid as it sounds, it still isn't as stupid as your claims.
Also as extra homework, why are the convictions of reported rapes very low?
Greyblades
08-23-2015, 02:24
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/061/664/1275937249093s.jpg
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 02:31
If anyone else have something to add, I'm all ears...
But Husar and Leel Erikson have a temp ban.
If anyone else have something to add, I'm all ears...
But Husar and Leel Erikson have a temp ban.
Trying to ignore the fact that you have no facts, nice try.
Unfortunately, my internet decided to be terrible today and I will be surprised this is even posted.
But please refrain from the racist remarks such as using an n-word and comparing people to monkeys. :bow:
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 03:25
Unfortunately, my internet decided to be terrible today and I will be surprised this is even posted. But please refrain from the racist remarks such as comparing people to monkeys. :bow:
Uh... Bananas was a nicer way to say penises...
I eat bananas, and I heard others do to... If you see it as racist the problem is in the eye of the beholder, I really wasn't the one making the conclusion or reference bananas = monkeys = blacks...
Feels like the moderation was more racist than anything I wrote...
Absolutely right - it was stupid of the Swedish government to accept so many people so quickly, allow them all to clump together and assume they would become good socialists.
Yes, it would be much better if Poland would actually behave like good catholics and take it's fair share of desperate souls, as well as some of the other xenophobic countries in Europe. That would probably result in far more manageable numbers everywhere.
No stop trolling Kad and re-state your position formally like a good Backroomer because I have no idea what you're on about at this point and if it's so simple you can do the gentlemanly thing and explain it rather than ask us to wade through seven pages. Whatever else you can say about Kad's position he's been entirely upfront about it.
Trolling Kad? He is the one repeating the same bad points every four months as though they had never been disproven. My name is not Sisyphos and for being "honest", I am not fond of repeating things over and over for someone who constantly throws veiled insults at me and combines it with veiled racism while he never provides any proof, only opinions and unsubstantiated racist garbage statements. Do you think I haven't noticed that ever since the "Africans have a lower IQ" argument was proven to be unsubstantiated racism, he replaced it with "some cultures are just HORRIBLE", which basially carries the same racist intention?
You may want to reconsider who is the troll here...I don't want to repeat the same discussion every few months and spend hours doing so, when his lack of any kind of sensible argument can also be exposed much faster. And that people can't remember anything is unfortunate, maybe that's why we always have the same discussions again and again, Im just trying to break the vicious circle...
But if you want a short repetition, we're basically crying on a very high level. Not only could we sort out our "aid" and "cooperation" that currently often exacerbates problems or even causes them, we could also put in more effort to help those who are actually in need of help.
And here in the thread we could stop assuming that everybody who arrives here is actually allowed to stay indefinitely or even to stay at all. And Im tired of the wealthy always blaming the poor. Assad was suppoted by Putin, the rebels were supplied by the CIA, who do we blame? The people who come here trying not to die. Wow, that's brave and heroic! We even come up with all kinds of assumptions on how greedy they are and that scares us because we have so much more and do not want to give them anything Surely that makes us better...
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 04:12
Newspeak bullshit propogated by the same Swedish government that brings in the bottom of the barrel.
Immigration is fine if you have plans to turn the immigrants into countrymen.
This.
I never once had a problem with a black guy who in clear Swedish talked with me about the last hockey game while petting his dog - or similar...
But if you have 8 million Swedes, and you pump in 1,5 million foreigners from nations/cultures often completely un-synched... Without a plan what so ever of how to make it work...
Yeah, we see the results.
And we are just ACCELERATING the immigration... 127.000 people people got permanent residency and citizenship 2014... By this rate it will be another half million people the next 3-4 years.
Oh, and we still have no jobs or apartments for them... It's even so bad that Swedish young adults today are pushed out of the work/apartment market, because immigrants have so many "affirmative action" programs working for them.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 04:40
Uh... Bananas was a nicer way to say penises...
I eat bananas, and I heard others do to... If you see it as racist the problem is in the eye of the beholder, I really wasn't the one making the conclusion or reference bananas = monkeys = blacks...
Feels like the moderation was more racist than anything I wrote...
It wasn't about the bananas you special snowflake.
Papewaio
08-23-2015, 04:45
Governments without a plan for infrastructure and development is never a good scenario.
Integration is not easy but if done well is a net positive otherwise it's all pain and no gain.
Papewaio
08-23-2015, 04:47
Uh... Bananas was a nicer way to say penises...
I eat bananas, and I heard others do to... If you see it as racist the problem is in the eye of the beholder, I really wasn't the one making the conclusion or reference bananas = monkeys = blacks
It's either racist or you like to "eat" penis.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 04:54
It's either racist or you like to "eat" penis.
That seems like a very extreme way to interpret it.
That seems like a very extreme way to interpret it.
It was a racist statement even if you hadn't said banana. And the part before it was a racist stereotype as well.
Tell me one thing, if Swedish people are so great, why did they vote for so many governments that ruin the country?
You keep claiming that only rotten cultures ruin their countries after all...
Sure all go ahead, Sweden has absolutily no problem with immigrants. Except that it does, why let facts get into your way. Feeling good about yourself is also important
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 12:41
It was a racist statement even if you hadn't said banana. And the part before it was a racist stereotype as well.
Tell me one thing, if Swedish people are so great, why did they vote for so many governments that ruin the country?
You keep claiming that only rotten cultures ruin their countries after all...
Husar, as I already said, I won't continue discussing with you for some months, till I have seen that you can have a normal, functional discussion.
Because when you start to argue like this:
Also prove the connection between your statistic and immigration.
Then show that there are no other possible factors that could be rsponsible for the statistical increase over time.
You're just not worth my time.
Sorry, the internet was dreadful in my area and it just cleared up. I don't know what is worse.. having no internet, or it being so impaired where every blue moon it works, so you keep trying to tap away at it.
Bananas was a nicer way to say penises...
It was more the use of n-word and the fact you were describing them as mindless animals. True, use of Monkey was incorrect.
Anyway, there were quite some racist statements and not simply because you said 'Banana'. If you want to talk about immigration, that is fine, I have no issues with this. If you are going to cross that line where your comments are deemed racist, then I am stepping in.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2015, 14:05
Do you mean the link you just posted? because his english link was definitely some sort of biased blog. Also the bloomberg article is interesting because it takes a stab at all of them as opposed to just Sweden.
Furthermore, the article i posted debunks the articles he posted, and it uses very clear language, calling it false.
I gave you the original article the blog was riffing off, and I gave you as much context as I could for it.
The Bloomberg article it basically Americans debating what they think about Europe - the Swedish one is about the situation in Sweden, and even running it through Google translate you can see it makes grim reading. Now, whether you think the article has enough statistics to support its main point is another question and a bit difficult to tell when running the whole thing through a computer program but it describes things common to European ghettos like an ethnically cohesive criminal class and a "wall of silence" when the Police try to investigate any crime, regardless of context.
Bear in mind that Americans will tend to imagine not just a ghetto but also endemic Urban decay. In Europe it's perfectly possible to have a ghetto where everything works and which you can actually walk through quite happily during the day, provided you're on the main streets. What Europeans - white Europeans - mean when they talk about a "ghetto" is somewhere where the writ of national law is thin because of local non-co-operation and where all the white people have sold up and left.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2015, 14:32
Yes, it would be much better if Poland would actually behave like good catholics and take it's fair share of desperate souls, as well as some of the other xenophobic countries in Europe. That would probably result in far more manageable numbers everywhere.
Sorry, what? Would you like to list all the racist countries for us just so we can be clear?
From wehere I'm sitting most European countries don't want to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year, and I don't blame them because it's not manageable.
Trolling Kad? He is the one repeating the same bad points every four months as though they had never been disproven. My name is not Sisyphos and for being "honest", I am not fond of repeating things over and over for someone who constantly throws veiled insults at me and combines it with veiled racism while he never provides any proof, only opinions and unsubstantiated racist garbage statements. Do you think I haven't noticed that ever since the "Africans have a lower IQ" argument was proven to be unsubstantiated racism, he replaced it with "some cultures are just HORRIBLE", which basially carries the same racist intention?
Kad does tend to repeat himself, but his arguments have developed. He's gone from "I don't want them here" to "I don't want them here but I want to make their country better".
Also, not all his arguments are "bad" at all. While it's inflamatory to say we should "sink the boats before they leave" he's basically correct that these boats are deathtraps and if we blokaded the ports they were coming from we'd ruin the people trafficers and we'd no longer have thousands of man women and children dying in the Med every month. You haven't suggested an alternative to a blockade to stop the boats and we DO need to stop them, as close to home port as possible.
As for Kad being racist, no he's not. Is he prejudiced, oh hell yes, excessively, but that's a product of his life experience and he's hardly a single voice in Europe these days. If you don't think that killing your daughter for having a boyfriend and wanting to live her own life is horrible and basically evil then I have no sympathy for your perspective. It is a FACT that certain African and Middle Eastern cultures, which are predominantly Muslim, practice this. They also practice female genital mutilation and forced marriage which is basically family-condoned rape.
Kad finds these people disgusting and he wants nothing of their cultures, neither do I, and that does not make us racist. Racist would be seeing these people as "unevolved" or their culture as "underdeveloped" when neither is true. These people are just as intelligent as us and their cultures are just as rich and complex - and part of that rich culture is the disgusting things mentioned above.
Now, as I know that you're going to bring it up I'll touch briefly on Kad's somewhat unhealthy obsession with IQ tests. IQ tests were, and still largely are, designed by white people from European cultures and it is a fact that when exported to other cultures, especially African ones, that the median score is often lower than 100. This doesn't mean Africans are "stupid" or genetically inferior but it does tell you that they don't think like us - which is obvious if you look at their rich culture and the way they construct their societies - it's something Nelson Mandela discussed in one of the early chapters of his autobiography and he even tacitly acknowledged that the African forms of government were poorly designed to respond to the top-down Colonial governments because they king required absolute consensus before he could do anything.
You may want to reconsider who is the troll here...I don't want to repeat the same discussion every few months and spend hours doing so, when his lack of any kind of sensible argument can also be exposed much faster. And that people can't remember anything is unfortunate, maybe that's why we always have the same discussions again and again, Im just trying to break the vicious circle...
"Go back and read what I wrote before" is a classic troll-tactic as opposed to "go back and read what I wrote in post #75" which is not.
I'm not sure it's malicious but you're far from coherent in the Ukraine threads and I personally feel that the lazy moderating style of the Backroom has caused you to develop bad habits.
But if you want a short repetition, we're basically crying on a very high level. Not only could we sort out our "aid" and "cooperation" that currently often exacerbates problems or even causes them, we could also put in more effort to help those who are actually in need of help.
And here in the thread we could stop assuming that everybody who arrives here is actually allowed to stay indefinitely or even to stay at all. And Im tired of the wealthy always blaming the poor. Assad was suppoted by Putin, the rebels were supplied by the CIA, who do we blame? The people who come here trying not to die. Wow, that's brave and heroic! We even come up with all kinds of assumptions on how greedy they are and that scares us because we have so much more and do not want to give them anything Surely that makes us better...
That's not a poor summation of the problem, but you're not offering any real solutions. We have tried "sorting out" our aid and co-operation but it's not that easy, we co-operated with the moderate secular opposition to Gaddaffi when the Libyan Civil War broke out to try to get out ahead of the Islamists and that actually worked, but then Russia and China prevented us from doing the same in Syria which eroded all the good will in the Arab world we had just built up and then Islamic State became the answer to Tyranny - meanwhile the secular moderates in Libya were unable to hold back the various tribes there and now that country has basically been split in two in a sort of internal Cold War.
Let me pose you a specific question - Greece had 50,000 immigrants from the Middle East last month, many coming via Turkey, how do we stop that because Greece can't cope with those numbers for any sustained period.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 15:13
Thank you PVC :)
Very well written.
About my idea to sink the boats... I don't see why it would be so inflammatory? I of course in no way suggest sinking boats out at sea with people in them... What I of course mean is to set up a smaller intelligence operation to find out what ships/boats are to ferry immigrants the next day, and during the night put some well placed holes in them.
When the smugglers start to lose their boats without getting the money for "safe" passage (and I mean "safe" in a very, very sarcastic way), they will cease with that method.
The reason why I want to sink them is the same as you said:
we DO need to stop them, as close to home port as possible.
Can't get any closer than what I suggest... It would also directly hit the smugglers before the people pay...
As it is now, we just have a system that keep the smugglers motivated to continue flooding Europe while risking peoples lives.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2015, 15:55
Aren't you supposed to leave behind an indication of what he said so that it doesn't look like everyone is just ganging up on Kad?
I applaud you sudden stirring of a need to actually moderate, I hope you have many more, but if Kad is actually being racist his friends should have some indication of what he said so that they can cuff him around the ear for it.
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 16:13
Aren't you supposed to leave behind an indication of what he said so that it doesn't look like everyone is just ganging up on Kad?
I applaud you sudden stirring of a need to actually moderate, I hope you have many more, but if Kad is actually being racist his friends should have some indication of what he said so that they can cuff him around the ear for it.
IIRC, there was something about how Africans from cultures where women dress as tents seem to have a hard time controlling their penises when surrounded by blonde women in miniskirts...
______________________________________________________________________________________
In a way I can understand (but still detest) why. First of all women are often seen as cattle in their home cultures... Women dressed like ours are "whores" in their eyes...
And as around 85% of Asylum seekers are men, it kind of means it's hard for them to mate in their own population group, so instead they mate with my population group by force/threat.
Also what little control functions that might have stemmed their behavior in their home nations: Family, tribal honour, and so on - is often non-existant here.
Was only yesterday that a black guy walked into a 60 year old womans backyard and signalled and then tried to force her to bend over her garden table so he could relieve himself in her...
Luckily she was able to scare him off with screams and violence.
Things like this sound absurd, but they happen increasingly often. Women just have no value in their cultures.
Husar, as I already said, I won't continue discussing with you for some months, till I have seen that you can have a normal, functional discussion.
Because when you start to argue like this:
You're just not worth my time.
You make a claim, I post arguments against it, you dismiss them without any evidence for your claims, and then you say I cannot debate because I ask for you to prove your claims...
That makes no sense...
Was only yesterday that a black guy walked into a 60 year old womans backyard and signalled and then tried to force her to bend over her garden table so he could relieve himself in her...
Luckily she was able to scare him off with screams and violence.
Things like this sound absurd, but they happen increasingly often. Women just have no value in their cultures.
And this means we should reject families with children or what are we to deduce from these anecdotes?
Kadagar_AV
08-23-2015, 17:12
Husar, again:
When you start to argue like this:
Also prove the connection between your statistic and immigration.
Then show that there are no other possible factors that could be rsponsible for the statistical increase over time.
You are just trolling (I hope, the alternative would be that you are stupid). And in either case that's not worth my time.
So sharpen your arguments or thinking, or take that I'm not interested in discussing with you.
To break it down for others:
Also prove the connection between your statistic and immigration.
Prove we are not all holograms?
Some things are impossible to prove down to the last digit, that however have nothing to do with seeing general trends. If anyone want FULL proof of anything said, the discussion will be impossible.
IE, can I PROVE that Black guy A who commited crime B did it because of cultural reasons, and not because someone slipped a drug in his drink? Nope.
Can I walk through every criminal case and directly see that culture is the reason behind it? Nope.
What we can do, is see general trends. IE, around 15% of the population committing more than 50% of the rapes.
Same goes with the build-up of the 55 No-Go zones for the Swedish police... Is it all the immigrants fault? Of course not, but the last ghetto youth center I worked at SURE had 99 people yelling ALLAHU AKBAR for ever white dude who threw stones at police cars.
Can I prove it wasn't because of the last healthcare reform or alien overmind though? Nope.
Then show that there are no other possible factors that could be rsponsible for the statistical increase over time.
There are always other factors at work, so a question like this is either pure trolling, or semi-retarded.
Can I prove that 100% of the PISA results for our schools are because of immigration? Nope, we have had reforms and stuff... With that said it sure looks like them Africans seem to struggle with their own education, while simultaneously disrupting it for the others.
To have to go through that there are NO OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS is impossible. Again, an alien overmind at work?
A serious reply would go along the lines of: "You say it is so, but have you considered this factor". That is a BR worthy argument.
PROVE THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS is pure trolling and/or idiocy.
Husar, again:
When you start to argue like this:
You are just trolling (I hope, the alternative would be that you are stupid). And in either case that's not worth my time.
So sharpen your arguments or thinking, or take that I'm not interested in discussing with you.
:laugh4:
I'm not trolling, and thanks for the insult, it's funny because you're still wrong.
Prove we are not all holograms?
Some things are impossible to prove down to the last digit, that however have nothing to do with seeing general trends. If anyone want FULL proof of anything said, the discussion will be impossible.
IE, can I PROVE that Black guy A who commited crime B did it because of cultural reasons, and not because someone slipped a drug in his drink? Nope.
Can I walk through every criminal case and directly see that culture is the reason behind it? Nope.
I posted an article that claimed the increase in numbers is due to other factors such as changes in the way police statistics are kept. You have done absolutely nothing to show that the increase is only due to immigration and not due to changes in statistical methods.
You make a wild claim that you cannot back up, ignore evidence to the contrary and then call your opposition stupid...
If you say the change are only due to immigration, you have to back this up somehow other than "it is obvious to me", because that isn't proof for anything. It is possible that immigration led to more crimes being committed, but according to the only journalistic source posted so far, it's nowhere near as drastic as you claim. And instead of backing up your claim, you resort to personal attacks, an arrogant but in no way helpful approach. If I were to report or punish you every time you (indirectly) call me stupid, you might as well be permabanned. How about you start posting sources instead of insults and personal opinions?
What we can do, is see general trends. IE, around 15% of the immigrant men committing more than 50% of the rapes.
And where are these numbers coming from? Or is that impossible to show as well?
According to you it is stupid to ask whether you have any sources for these numbers...
Same goes with the build-up of the 55 No-Go zones for the Swedish police... Is it all the immigrants fault? Of course not, but the last ghetto youth center I worked at SURE had 99 people yelling ALLAHU AKBAR for ever white dude who threw stones at police cars.
Can I prove it wasn't because of the last healthcare reform or alien overmind though? Nope.
No, but I only need to take your arguments to prove that swedish culture is rotten because it ruined its own country.
And that's not trolling, that's only to highlight how silly some of your statements are.
You keep stating that rotten cultures ruin their own countries, then you say the politicians Swedes voted into office for 30 years have ruined the country, obviously Swedish culture must be rotten because the people don't know what's good for the country.
Your arguments, not mine...
There are always other factors at work, so a question like this is either pure trolling, or semi-retarded.
Another insult?
Good argument...or should I thank you for your honesty?
To have to go through that there are NO OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS is impossible. Again, an alien overmind at work?
You could be creative and prove that there is any kind of link in the first place. The reason I wanted you to prove the absence of other factors was that you dismissed the article that listed several other factors. You cannot just dismiss it without providing anything to back up your dismissal other than your personal opinion.
Instead you post a long tirade about how stupid I am, this is very bad form and it gets very tiring in the long run.
A serious reply would go along the lines of: "You say it is so, but have you considered this factor". That is a BR worthy argument.
PROVE THERE ARE NO OTHER POSSIBLE FACTORS is pure trolling and/or idiocy.
Your insults are hardly BR-worthy either, I suggest you start by working on them and posting actual sources instead of replying with your typical "trolling or idiot" to everything I say, which is not helpful. If I were trolling you, it would be because you constantly insult me.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 18:02
Is it everytime you are faced with a call out you either call them trolls or stupid? If you can't back your claims with actual evidence, or the fact the swedish government is ruining its own country then you are practically for all intents and purposes either deluded or extremely dense and fed trash.
Leet Eriksson
08-23-2015, 18:11
I gave you the original article the blog was riffing off, and I gave you as much context as I could for it.
The Bloomberg article it basically Americans debating what they think about Europe - the Swedish one is about the situation in Sweden, and even running it through Google translate you can see it makes grim reading. Now, whether you think the article has enough statistics to support its main point is another question and a bit difficult to tell when running the whole thing through a computer program but it describes things common to European ghettos like an ethnically cohesive criminal class and a "wall of silence" when the Police try to investigate any crime, regardless of context.
Bear in mind that Americans will tend to imagine not just a ghetto but also endemic Urban decay. In Europe it's perfectly possible to have a ghetto where everything works and which you can actually walk through quite happily during the day, provided you're on the main streets. What Europeans - white Europeans - mean when they talk about a "ghetto" is somewhere where the writ of national law is thin because of local non-co-operation and where all the white people have sold up and left.
The problem still lies in the fact the Bloomberg article quotes an Academic, Daniel Pipes, who has no love for Muslims at all if you even know that sort of discourse, so yeah i don't really care what the article imagines, they're stating facts and quoting and backing it up with the words of an academic, so no its not just opinion or "americans debating" or imagining things here and it really does go the whole length of the argument in calling the delusions of the articles posted by Kadagar false.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-lawsuit-fox-news-reporting-no-go-zones-non-muslims
these are to more articles on the issue, take note, the latter is a British publication, its kind of obvious the whole issue is perpetuated by delusional racists into thinking a minority that are in the single percentile controlling entire European countries.
Is it everytime you are faced with a call out you either call them trolls or stupid? If you can't back your claims with actual evidence, or the fact the swedish government is ruining its own country then you are practically for all intents and purposes either deluded or extremely dense and fed trash.
You seem to take it personal, why would you, it isn't you who does it. Can we call a spade a spade please? It's just true that Sweden has a significant problem with immigrants and their offspring. Why not looking at what can be done better instead of looking away from obvious problems. They exist. What Sweden hauls in isn't Arab nobility such as yourself but from the worst places in the world.
Sorry, what? Would you like to list all the racist countries for us just so we can be clear?
From wehere I'm sitting most European countries don't want to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year, and I don't blame them because it's not manageable.
Immigrants or refugees? Refugees should return once their reason for fleeing is gone. And where did I call a country racist?
I said some are xenophobic.
Besides, there are only so many refugees per country in the countries open to them because the others hardly let any in. If all countries accepted some refugees and there were a fair distribution, then it would be more manageable in every country. Maybe Sweden would not have to accept a hundred thousand every year if Poland took in a few thousand of them, and Poland has around 4 times the Population of Sweden or so, they could afford to take more. Add a few other countries chipping in and there might be just 5000 left for Sweden each year, quite a few of which should ultimately be sent back once their country of origin is peaceful again. Sounds more manageable? It should be coordinated by the EU preferably and I red today that some efforts like that are on the way but some countries seem not to want to help either way.
Kad does tend to repeat himself, but his arguments have developed. He's gone from "I don't want them here" to "I don't want them here but I want to make their country better".
Actually he has just added a part because the first part of his argument hasn't changed.
My argument is that we can accept some of them here, some of them should only stay temporarily anyway and that yes, we should stop ruining other countries and help them get better, which was how I started into this thread long ago.
Also, not all his arguments are "bad" at all. While it's inflamatory to say we should "sink the boats before they leave" he's basically correct that these boats are deathtraps and if we blokaded the ports they were coming from we'd ruin the people trafficers and we'd no longer have thousands of man women and children dying in the Med every month. You haven't suggested an alternative to a blockade to stop the boats and we DO need to stop them, as close to home port as possible.
Or we could provide them safe boats and undermine the traffickers that way. Noone can explain though, how we would deal with the issue of operating in foreign countries that may not want us to operate there. Kadagar just wants to undermine their national sovereignty by sending spec ops apparently. And what do we do if they perform makeshift repairs on the holes in their boats and try to come with even less safe boats? Destroy the entire boats with spec ops? What if they begin to hunt down our spec ops? Full-scale invasion? Drone strikes on boats?
As for Kad being racist, no he's not. Is he prejudiced, oh hell yes, excessively, but that's a product of his life experience and he's hardly a single voice in Europe these days.
:laugh4:
The way these refugees are is also a product of their life experience...
Apparently we can blame them for being that way though but not Kadagar, why?
If you don't think that killing your daughter for having a boyfriend and wanting to live her own life is horrible and basically evil then I have no sympathy for your perspective. It is a FACT that certain African and Middle Eastern cultures, which are predominantly Muslim, practice this. They also practice female genital mutilation and forced marriage which is basically family-condoned rape.
Where did I say that is not wrong? Can you support the apparent position that everybody who comes here as a refugee wants to do that?
Is it legal to do that in most European countries? Does it change the fact that thinking they do this due to an inherent inferiority is racist?
I know he does not say that outright, but he did often enough in the past and never said otherwise, IMO it sort of "shines through" a lot of his statements. He is free to retract that claim and maybe I will change my opinion then.
Kad finds these people disgusting and he wants nothing of their cultures, neither do I, and that does not make us racist. Racist would be seeing these people as "unevolved" or their culture as "underdeveloped" when neither is true. These people are just as intelligent as us and their cultures are just as rich and complex - and part of that rich culture is the disgusting things mentioned above.
Now, as I know that you're going to bring it up I'll touch briefly on Kad's somewhat unhealthy obsession with IQ tests. IQ tests were, and still largely are, designed by white people from European cultures and it is a fact that when exported to other cultures, especially African ones, that the median score is often lower than 100. This doesn't mean Africans are "stupid" or genetically inferior but it does tell you that they don't think like us - which is obvious if you look at their rich culture and the way they construct their societies - it's something Nelson Mandela discussed in one of the early chapters of his autobiography and he even tacitly acknowledged that the African forms of government were poorly designed to respond to the top-down Colonial governments because they king required absolute consensus before he could do anything.
Yes, and that is where I think you and Kadagar differ because he does still seem to think they are inherently inferior. As I said it shines through in the derogatory ways and the terminology he uses when he talks about people from Africa. In the same way that he always calls me stuid without obviously breaking forum rules. Your argument is like saying neo nazis aren't racist because they never make racist comments in front of a camera. They don't make racist comments in front of a camera on purpose. It's also true for a lot of terrorists by the way, muslim ones included, before anyone accuses me of not having them on the radar. (it's like one has to add that not to be accused of being too PC these days, how very anti-PC....)
"Go back and read what I wrote before" is a classic troll-tactic as opposed to "go back and read what I wrote in post #75" which is not.
And "that's either trolling or semi-retarded" is fine in comparison? He did not read or remember what I said and then I have to go through all the posts to look for the content he does not have? Why do I have to waste 10 minutes due to his fault? I do not index my posts either.
I'm not sure it's malicious but you're far from coherent in the Ukraine threads and I personally feel that the lazy moderating style of the Backroom has caused you to develop bad habits.
The Ukraine thread is a different thread about a different topic where I had different reasons to do different things. And mayb it was a mistake to be so persistent in it for so long. Maybe. I might troll Kadagar because he keeps calling me stupid, you can see it as sign of good will that I don't.
That's not a poor summation of the problem, but you're not offering any real solutions. We have tried "sorting out" our aid and co-operation but it's not that easy, we co-operated with the moderate secular opposition to Gaddaffi when the Libyan Civil War broke out to try to get out ahead of the Islamists and that actually worked, but then Russia and China prevented us from doing the same in Syria which eroded all the good will in the Arab world we had just built up and then Islamic State became the answer to Tyranny - meanwhile the secular moderates in Libya were unable to hold back the various tribes there and now that country has basically been split in two in a sort of internal Cold War.
Let me pose you a specific question - Greece had 50,000 immigrants from the Middle East last month, many coming via Turkey, how do we stop that because Greece can't cope with those numbers for any sustained period.
But what we did with Gaddafi lead to the coast being so open for the traffickers, what we did in Afghanistan and other countries directly lead to all the refugees. And what we did to Gaddafi also led to Syrians and others thinking we will bomb their government if they rise up. Maybe we should use a little more foresight. Even if we cannot easily rectify our past mistakes easily now, and that may be why I have no solid solution, then we can at least own up to them and help these refugees now instead of unloading the problems we helped create onto other countries. If it causes problems, see it as a lesson and try not to make such mistakes again, they obviously do backfire sometimes.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-23-2015, 19:09
The problem still lies in the fact the Bloomberg article quotes an Academic, Daniel Pipes, who has no love for Muslims at all if you even know that sort of discourse, so yeah i don't really care what the article imagines, they're stating facts and quoting and backing it up with the words of an academic, so no its not just opinion or "americans debating" or imagining things here and it really does go the whole length of the argument in calling the delusions of the articles posted by Kadagar false.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/paris-mayor-to-sue-fox-over-no-go-zone-comments/384656/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-lawsuit-fox-news-reporting-no-go-zones-non-muslims
these are to more articles on the issue, take note, the latter is a British publication, its kind of obvious the whole issue is perpetuated by delusional racists into thinking a minority that are in the single percentile controlling entire European countries.
Did you even take a look at the article I linked to?
The Swedish article quotes Academics (plural) and Swedish Police.
I realise it's in Swedish but, as I said, you could run it through Google translate or something similar and you would see that this Swedish journal is reporting the same thing about Sweden as Kad is.
Now, I don't know the Atlantic but to read the Guardian, or parts of it, you would think Julian Assange was a prisoner of conscience rather than a letch who is hiding in a foreign embassy until the statute of limitations runs out on his rape case in Sweden
Like I said, I'm not saying the journal lacks a bias but it appears more robust than Bloombery and certainly more robust than the Guardian.
I looked up Daniel Pipes - I see no reason why he should be an authority on this - the fact that he visited Paris and changed his opinion tells me he was not well informed and then altered his position based on personnal experience rather than on becoming better informed.
What you see is not always the whole truth.
I have a bridge to sell you
This is something that the government should keep an eye on.
I also don't want an American bridge, they're all rotten and if they still work, presidential candidates close them over personal feuds.
Wut, coolest bridge there is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpghttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg
Wut, coolest bridge there is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpghttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg
I'd take that one, but expect toll booths so I can pay for the necessary repairs and a repaint in rainbow colors.
Papewaio
08-24-2015, 02:42
Links with stats va posts that appear as anecdotes without links.
KAV a couple of links would be great... It's a bit like Fragony's opening posts with no context...
A simple google will do just fine. Kads isn't pulling anything out of his hat, I got family in Sweden that really want to leave, they never expected that they would ever want to. The countryside is as good as ever but I would skip the town(ships). It's simply baffling what multiculturalisms managed to screw up. Not because they had good intentions but simply out of narcissism.
Just a note to readers: Direct links do help a lot, and I would recommend these a lot. There have been a few occasions where google has failed due to language barriers and this is an international board. - Beskar
Kadagar_AV
08-24-2015, 10:25
Links with stats va posts that appear as anecdotes without links.
KAV a couple of links would be great... It's a bit like Fragony's opening posts with no context...
Pape, I already explained and linked to BRÅ.
What more do you want?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.