IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

This is getting really weird.

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

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

only pic counts, yeah that's official

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

[Sarmatian]

What is actually real?

[Fragony]

What is actually real?

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

[Brenus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

The point being? Germany spends more on refugees?

[Snowhobbit]

The point being? Germany spends more on refugees?

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

[Slyspy]

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

[Snowhobbit]

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Why did you?

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

[Snowhobbit]

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



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

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


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


No. Why did you?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

So you ignored the bit about the republicans having qualms about targeting civilians, and their always keeping contacts open and mostly keeping to their agreements. After the worst atrocity in the Troubles, the bombing at Omagh, RIRA refrained from further civilian targeting, and IIRC parts of them split away, while the rump PIRA assisted in making sure that no such things happened again as far as was in their control. That's terrorism with politics in mind, and when politics is involved, our society can deal with it.

Contrast with the 7/7 bombings, which killed even more than the Omagh incident. After the Omagh bombing, the various IRAs refrained from further attacks as killing civilians wasn't their primary aim, and indeed went against their primary aim, which was political. A few weeks after the 7/7 attacks, there were another series of attempted attacks in south London, thwarted only by the incompetence of the perpetrators. There wasn't any political aim to these attacks. The only aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. And after one incident of killing dozens of civilians, there wasn't a group responsible that was shocked by the death toll, that decided to stop further attacks as their political aim was undermined by the lethality of the attack. Instead, that first incident inspired another attack, without any political aim, but only with the aim of killing as many soft targets as possible.

There is a world of difference between terrorism with political aims, and terrorism that only tries to kill as many innocents as possible. The former requires that there is someone that we can deal with. We can cope with that. The latter doesn't have anyone that we can deal with, and the only thing we can do is suck it up. The Irish republicans were shocked by the death toll of Omagh, and no longer wanted anything to do with the attackers. The Islamists celebrated the death toll of the 7/7 bombings, and were inspired to attempt further attacks. While we may differ in politics, the Irish republicans are still recognisably of the same world as us. Islamists are completely alien to us.

[Brenus]

"There is a world of difference between terrorism with political aims, and terrorism that only tries to kill as many innocents as possible" I understand what you are saying. But killing innocents has as well a political aim.

[Sarmatian]

So you ignored the bit about the republicans having qualms about targeting civilians, and their always keeping contacts open and mostly keeping to their agreements. After the worst atrocity in the Troubles, the bombing at Omagh, RIRA refrained from further civilian targeting, and IIRC parts of them split away, while the rump PIRA assisted in making sure that no such things happened again as far as was in their control. That's terrorism with politics in mind, and when politics is involved, our society can deal with it.

Contrast with the 7/7 bombings, which killed even more than the Omagh incident. After the Omagh bombing, the various IRAs refrained from further attacks as killing civilians wasn't their primary aim, and indeed went against their primary aim, which was political. A few weeks after the 7/7 attacks, there were another series of attempted attacks in south London, thwarted only by the incompetence of the perpetrators. There wasn't any political aim to these attacks. The only aim was to kill as many civilians as possible. And after one incident of killing dozens of civilians, there wasn't a group responsible that was shocked by the death toll, that decided to stop further attacks as their political aim was undermined by the lethality of the attack. Instead, that first incident inspired another attack, without any political aim, but only with the aim of killing as many soft targets as possible.

There is a world of difference between terrorism with political aims, and terrorism that only tries to kill as many innocents as possible. The former requires that there is someone that we can deal with. We can cope with that. The latter doesn't have anyone that we can deal with, and the only thing we can do is suck it up. The Irish republicans were shocked by the death toll of Omagh, and no longer wanted anything to do with the attackers. The Islamists celebrated the death toll of the 7/7 bombings, and were inspired to attempt further attacks. While we may differ in politics, the Irish republicans are still recognisably of the same world as us. Islamists are completely alien to us.

Putting aside at the moment the whole notion of better terrorism, I'm primarily interested in this part

There wasn't any political aim to these attacks

Wasn't there? Since Russian involvement in Syria, there has been a quite a few terror attacks on Russian soil or on Russian citizens abroad. Previous terror attacks mostly involved Muslims from their own sphere of influence, rather than Muslims from the Middle East. We in Yugoslavia didn't have problems with Irish terrorists, you guys in the UK didn't have problems with Croatian terrorists.

While you may argue that UK isn't involved in anything happening in the Middle East, regardless if that's true or not, they do not perceive it that way.

So, I wouldn't really say there's no connection with politics.

[Pannonian]

Putting aside at the moment the whole notion of better terrorism, I'm primarily interested in this part

Wasn't there? Since Russian involvement in Syria, there has been a quite a few terror attacks on Russian soil or on Russian citizens abroad. Previous terror attacks mostly involved Muslims from their own sphere of influence, rather than Muslims from the Middle East. We in Yugoslavia didn't have problems with Irish terrorists, you guys in the UK didn't have problems with Croatian terrorists.

While you may argue that UK isn't involved in anything happening in the Middle East, regardless if that's true or not, they do not perceive it that way.

So, I wouldn't really say there's no connection with politics.

If there's a political aim, who do we talk to to prevent further attacks?

[Sarmatian]

If there's a political aim, who do we talk to to prevent further attacks?

Those close to the top of the relevant organizations would be my guess. What would happen afterwards is anyone's guess.

[Pannonian]

Those close to the top of the relevant organizations would be my guess. What would happen afterwards is anyone's guess.

So what's the relevant organisation?

[Sarmatian]

So what's the relevant organisation?

Relevant organizations. More than one. ISIS, Al Nusra and so on. My guess is that their demands would be practical, but totally unacceptable.

[Pannonian]

Relevant organizations. More than one. ISIS, Al Nusra and so on. My guess is that their demands would be practical, but totally unacceptable.

So which were the relevant organisations for the 7/7 and subsequent attacks? What are their demands?

[Snowhobbit]

Putting aside at the moment the whole notion of better terrorism, I'm primarily interested in this part



Wasn't there? Since Russian involvement in Syria, there has been a quite a few terror attacks on Russian soil or on Russian citizens abroad. Previous terror attacks mostly involved Muslims from their own sphere of influence, rather than Muslims from the Middle East. We in Yugoslavia didn't have problems with Irish terrorists, you guys in the UK didn't have problems with Croatian terrorists.

While you may argue that UK isn't involved in anything happening in the Middle East, regardless if that's true or not, they do not perceive it that way.

So, I wouldn't really say there's no connection with politics.

Could you enlighten me on the Swedish involvement in the Middle East? Since we were also blessed with a suicide bomber.

[Snowhobbit]

To add on to the whole scam pulled by a lot of grown men, here we have a "13 year old" who won a local 600meter sprint. Ctrl+F Pojkar födda -03 http://www5.idrottonline.se/GefleIFF...GDGIFsfinaler/