IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

wikidepiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass...sault_in_Egypt

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[Sarmatian]

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

Again implying they're not really humans?

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

To which the response was made;

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

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

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

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




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

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


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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

[Fragony]

Again implying they're not really humans?

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

[AE Bravo]

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

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

[HopAlongBunny]

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

[Husar]

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

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.

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

Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

?

[Snowhobbit]

See reply to Gilrandir at the end.



Thanks for the insult, you never fail to deliver. Almost makes me think you are a Kadagar-alt-account...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report



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



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

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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

?

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

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_m...ntion_in_Libya

?

Again: the question was about bombing only.

I can assure you that I am not Kadagar,

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

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

[Snowhobbit]

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



Again: the question was about bombing only.


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

Unless it is Kdagar who grew embittered with his experience.

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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



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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

Where is the first time I did?

Hyenas comparison.

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Fragony]

Hyenas comparison.



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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will let a British person comment on that.

[Snowhobbit]

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



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



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



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



I will let a British person comment on that.

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

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

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

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