IMMIGRATION thread

[Gilrandir]

Do you have clear example of atheists (Soviet) killing priest in kind of auto-da-fé (meaning not during war times)or it is just part of the rhetoric?

War times killings are not very different if a priest was not an open enemy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

News of the rightist military coup in 1936 unleashed a social revolutionary response, and no republican region escaped revolutionary and anticlerical violence - though in the Basque Country this was minimal. The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military rising), as well as attacks on landowners, industrialists, and politicians, and the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.

But if you insist on the data of peaceful times killings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_a...28%E2%80%9341)

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.

And as destruction of "holly" buildings, the faithful and believers are way ahead in the contest, when it is about to destroy buildings of faith from the others faiths, from the Christians destroying the Pagan sites in Europe then South America (well, around the world), or Christians killing priests of the slightly different Christians and their temples on the top of them, or will the destruction of Mosques within the Muslim religion do?

I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God. But, unlike you, I don't side with either side, forgive my pun. While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do. Both sides have been known to do nasty things to their opponents, so it is not about being religious or atheist. Just politics.

[Brenus]

All right: Check the casualties during the Spanish Civil War and you will learn about killings. And to provide Spanish Civil War as an example of Atheist Soviet killings... The Catholic Church having, as usual, supported the Fascist side, you cannot considered the priests as innocent bystanders. The killings by Fascists/"Priest supported" on Anarchists and Communists were much higher than that.
http://www.albavolunteer.org/2011/09...ish-holocaust/

"While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do" No, you do. I am the one saying when "atheists" do killing it not for faith but for politic, on the grounds you don't kill on the name of nothing. Religions ADD faith to political motives for killings.
In summary, atheists and religions kill for politic but religions put a surplus in motives. You see, unlike religions, atheists have no books or holy men telling them to do the killings.
"I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God" Gods. That is where the beginning of the trouble starts.

About your link, Stalin spared no one, and Priest were no exception (why should they?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges...e_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day" From our text: "More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone".
So, Stalin killed more atheists than religious, apparently. Does it means he was a religious person?

[Gilrandir]

All right: Check the casualties during the Spanish Civil War and you will learn about killings. And to provide Spanish Civil War as an example of Atheist Soviet killings... The Catholic Church having, as usual, supported the Fascist side, you cannot considered the priests as innocent bystanders. The killings by Fascists/"Priest supported" on Anarchists and Communists were much higher than that.
http://www.albavolunteer.org/2011/09...ish-holocaust/

"While you are very proud to be an atheist on the ground that atheists (unlike those filthy religious fanatics and obscurantists) don't do such terrible things as the faithful do" No, you do. I am the one saying when "atheists" do killing it not for faith but for politic, on the grounds you don't kill on the name of nothing. Religions ADD faith to political motives for killings.
In summary, atheists and religions kill for politic but religions put a surplus in motives. You see, unlike religions, atheists have no books or holy men telling them to do the killings.
"I know of the atrocities commited in the name of God" Gods. That is where the beginning of the trouble starts.

About your link, Stalin spared no one, and Priest were no exception (why should they?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purges...e_Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
"According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day" From our text: "More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone".
So, Stalin killed more atheists than religious, apparently. Does it means he was a religious person?

My all arguments through many religion-connected dicussions with you were: the reasons don't matter, the killings do. What is the difference how you justify killing people? If people are killed, who cares whether it is the book that "made" you do this, a" holy" man or the General secretary of the Central committee of the Communist party?

The faithful and the atheists have different reasons for killing, but it doesn't make any of them better than the others. You seem to think that killing for religious reasons is worse that otherwise.

[Husar]

A possible perspective:
If a woman sees something like that happen to her family member she is likely to get hysteric, and this hysterics is as often as not stopped by slapping her face. The police equivalent to face slapping is hadcuffing and sceaming at her.

So you agree what they did was wrong?

[Montmorency]

If a woman sees something like that happen to her family member she is likely to get hysteric, and this hysterics is as often as not stopped by slapping her face.

...

What?

[Gilrandir]

So you agree what they did was wrong?

I read only the woman's (women's) side of the story, so I can't judge until I hear what the policemen said (if they did say anything). What if the women tried to attack them and pervent their relative being arrested?

[Snowhobbit]

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


It is not me who has the issue.

But surely you do not have a monopoly on misattributing notions to other people?

While it is good if you don't have any issues with that, you could still answer the question.

[Papewaio]

Hey look, it is my avatar.

Certainly rings a bell.

I'll show my way out now.

[HopAlongBunny]

hmmm,

Dog + Bell

Why am i drooling!?

[Fragony]

Happy New Year Germa y thread was merged here as well? Can't find it.

Anyways, je n'est pas Charlie, but this cartoon is pretty brilliant http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-racism-debate

I know it's offensive but sarcasm should be

[Greyblades]

To quote imablogger from a guardian comment section:

The poor boy was killed by his fathers greed

Then his image was used to justify uncontrolled migration, which the right didn't like.

Now his image is used to justify a sexual stereotype, which the left don't like.

But don't try to stifle either view because if you do you stifle free speech

[Fragony]

If I would be really cynical I would be having a laugh over the latest icon, but I really can't do that as I only feel sorry for that kid. Who is cynical really, not me imho. True story is really ugly.

[Husar]

The poor boy was killed by his fathers greed

How do we know this?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...efugee-tragedy

How de we know he is greedy from his story?

[Greyblades]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ook-world.html

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

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Greyblades]

What criminal activities? Working illegally in Turkey or illegally crossing a border?

Even without the allegation he was a smuggler not smugglee; few nations encourage the illegal version of immigration, even the americans.

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

[Fragony]

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

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

[Husar]

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

Any links?

[Fragony]

pick one you think is credible http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL...41.NejZJTFaBXg

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

[Husar]

pick one you think is credible http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en-NL...41.NejZJTFaBXg

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ook-world.html

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

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[Greyblades]

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

Where's this quote from?

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where's this quote from?

The Guardian article in post #1786.

[Fragony]

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

[Husar]

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

Says who?

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/a...erin-1.2862286

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

[Fragony]

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

[Husar]

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

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