Org Mobile Site
Thread: To Hijab or not to Hijab
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
Hijab hasn't ruined any nation.
That was directed to Islamists in general, not hijab wearers in particular.Hijab hasn't ruined any nation.
"As a matter of fact, a majority of the recent migrant deaths would likely been avoided if they felt certain that Europe would not let them enter" Can you tell me how you reach your matter of fact? What you are probably saying is they wouldn't have die in our shore lines. Did you ever were in situation to meet refugees (UN definition of Refugees)?
And I think the message from Europe was quite clear: We don't want you, so die quietly with or without dignity out of our eyes sight. But, the fact is, they didn't listen, because death or slavery is certain in the hands of ISIL when less certain even in crossing the seas.
So your matter of fact is not a matter of fact.
And I think the message from Europe was quite clear: We don't want you, so die quietly with or without dignity out of our eyes sight. But, the fact is, they didn't listen, because death or slavery is certain in the hands of ISIL when less certain even in crossing the seas.
So your matter of fact is not a matter of fact.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
But, the fact is, they didn't listen, because death or slavery is certain in the hands of ISIL when less certain even in crossing the seas.
You don't have to travel by boat in order to escape IS, as Syrians that fled to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey can attest to.But, the fact is, they didn't listen, because death or slavery is certain in the hands of ISIL when less certain even in crossing the seas.
There is the Romania route of course but has gotten a lot harder, so a lot will still try to take a boat to Greece
Originally Posted by Brenus:
"My solution is to forbid immigration.": Let them die. And that is not fascism?
You ought to know. After all YOU live in the country that qualifies your definition of fascism - it "lets them die" by forbidding them to enter the Channel tunnel."My solution is to forbid immigration.": Let them die. And that is not fascism?
Originally Posted by Brenus:
How do you intend to enforce it? I am quite curious on the methods?
My solution is rather retrospective, it should have been done 25 odd years ago. As for what is to be done now - reap what you sowed. If you opened your gate once and decided it doesn't need a lock because all around there are sober-minded and sensible middle-class people - come up with something when you wake up and see that it is not so.How do you intend to enforce it? I am quite curious on the methods?
Originally Posted by Husar:
So we are all glad that Putin removed the Russian immigrants from Ukraine now?
1. Bringing in Putin every time you think appropriate derails threads and pushes the forum one inch closer to the abyss of cheap-shotism, sensationalism and one-trick-ponyism (cited after Sarmatian's "The Selected Edifications").So we are all glad that Putin removed the Russian immigrants from Ukraine now?
2. Russian immigrants (that is Russian regular armed forces) are still there with all their chattels and paraphernalia.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
No, just the 600,000-odd Welsh speakers, they tend to have relatively low mobility.
I wonder if they teach the same history in England and Scotland. I mean if one finished, say, 5 grades in England and then moved to Scotland, would the history taught there seem rather upside-down?No, just the 600,000-odd Welsh speakers, they tend to have relatively low mobility.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
There is the Romania route of course but has gotten a lot harder, so a lot will still try to take a boat to Greece
They can just stay in Turkey, Libanon and Jordan. IS and the war won't get to them there.There is the Romania route of course but has gotten a lot harder, so a lot will still try to take a boat to Greece
Originally Posted by Viking:
You don't have to travel by boat in order to escape IS, as Syrians that fled to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey can attest to.
So Europe is full, but the countries that actually have a lot more refugees already can take even more?You don't have to travel by boat in order to escape IS, as Syrians that fled to Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey can attest to.
Especially considering that Lebanon did not ruin Iraq and has people fleeing from there itself.
Makes sense...
I'm sure if Germany invaded Norway again to slaughter everyone, you'd be happy to live in a tent in northern Sweden for the rest of your life. And you wouldn't bring any clothes or a smartphone because then you'd obviously just be there for the money.
Originally Posted by Husar:
So Europe is full
Nope, ongoing cultural segregation of Muslims in Europe makes it an less than ideal destination. France has accepted immigrants from Muslim countries for many, many years - and now many Jews are fleeing the country due to violent attacks from the Muslim population there (not to mention all the terrorist attacks).So Europe is full
Solve one problem, create another.
Originally Posted by :
but the countries that actually have a lot more refugees already can take even more?
With financial support, sure they can. They should also push certain rich neighbours to take their share.but the countries that actually have a lot more refugees already can take even more?
Originally Posted by :
Especially considering that Lebanon did not ruin Iraq and has people fleeing from there itself.
Iraq was ruined by Iraqis. Since you started making WWII analogies, note that none of the countries Norway, France and Denmark descended into civil war despite years of Nazi occupation and counter-insurgency.Especially considering that Lebanon did not ruin Iraq and has people fleeing from there itself.
Originally Posted by :
be happy to live in a tent in northern Sweden for the rest of your life.
Other countries with similar culture to that found in Syria could easily start integrating Syrian refugees. There are plenty of countries in the region where they would integrate a lot better than in Europe.be happy to live in a tent in northern Sweden for the rest of your life.
Originally Posted by Viking:
They can just stay in Turkey, Libanon and Jordan. IS and the war won't get to them there.
They can just stay in Turkey, Libanon and Jordan. IS and the war won't get to them there.
But they don't
Originally Posted by Fragony:
But they don't
And the result is many pointless deaths.But they don't
KSA just banned adoption of Syrians, you can still visit a refugee camp to rape a 14 year old back in Riyadh for a few weeks before you ship them back to Jordan though.
If the Gulf won't accept kinsmen in Yemen they're not letting in these strange Levantine refugees either.
If the Gulf won't accept kinsmen in Yemen they're not letting in these strange Levantine refugees either.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Solve one problem, create another.
So accept the consequences of this logic. If an international quota system were created and enforced such that (less-)restive Middle Eastern states were to take in the large share of refugees from neighboring countries, then the process would within a few years result in both widespread disintegration of governments and war across all Eurasia, soon drawing in the United States. Congratulations, you have started WW3. Solve one problem, create another.
The problem with consequentialism, like with libertarianism, is that no one actually wants to apply it rigorously - the results end up being distasteful to the endorsers.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Nope, ongoing cultural segregation of Muslims in Europe makes it an less than ideal destination. France has accepted immigrants from Muslim countries for many, many years - and now many Jews are fleeing the country due to violent attacks from the Muslim population there (not to mention all the terrorist attacks).
Solve one problem, create another.
How about we remove the troublemakers them?Nope, ongoing cultural segregation of Muslims in Europe makes it an less than ideal destination. France has accepted immigrants from Muslim countries for many, many years - and now many Jews are fleeing the country due to violent attacks from the Muslim population there (not to mention all the terrorist attacks).
Solve one problem, create another.
[QUOTE=Viking;2053654318]With financial support, sure they can. They should also push certain rich neighbours to take their share.
So we give other countries the money they ask for because having them here would be too much of a drain on our finances?
Originally Posted by Viking:
Iraq was ruined by Iraqis. Since you started making WWII analogies, note that none of the countries Norway, France and Denmark descended into civil war despite years of Nazi occupation and counter-insurgency.
Yes, because Norway before the occupation was just like Iraq before colonialism. And Norway never had any periods of violence either, Europeans always got along just fine and accepted the borders given to them by their foreign overlords.Iraq was ruined by Iraqis. Since you started making WWII analogies, note that none of the countries Norway, France and Denmark descended into civil war despite years of Nazi occupation and counter-insurgency.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Other countries with similar culture to that found in Syria could easily start integrating Syrian refugees. There are plenty of countries in the region where they would integrate a lot better than in Europe.
Some of them are even our best friends!Other countries with similar culture to that found in Syria could easily start integrating Syrian refugees. There are plenty of countries in the region where they would integrate a lot better than in Europe.
Originally Posted by Husar:
wrote stuff
Yeah...wrote stuff
Well...
Uh...
I am sorry to say, but you just seem like SUCH a good post WW2 German.
Let's face the facts, shall we? Just for a moment?
Islam is an absolutely vile religion, as you will accept like what? 800.000 or so people from Islamic backgrounds just this year... How can you NOT see this going overly wrong in the near future?
I mean, Germany is just a step behind Sweden, and we already have peoples militias and negroes throwing handgrenades against the police.
Oh, sorry, that was wrong of me... No one has been sentenced for it, so I really can't say. However, there is a definitely CLEAR indicator that Africans make more crimes, also, crimes just seem to happen to happen around where African migrants live.
But that is of course wrong of me, an unfair accusation, and fairy tales, AMIRIGHT.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
The problem with consequentialism, like with libertarianism, is that no one actually wants to apply it rigorously - the results end up being distasteful to the endorsers.
Are you telling me that Rorschach is not the model citizen for people to live their lives by?The problem with consequentialism, like with libertarianism, is that no one actually wants to apply it rigorously - the results end up being distasteful to the endorsers.
Thread hijacked by non-Muslims.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Let's face the facts, shall we? Just for a moment?
I'm waiting.Let's face the facts, shall we? Just for a moment?
Originally Posted by Husar:
I'm waiting.
For what?I'm waiting.
I think I made myself perfectly clear...
Sie sitzen da wie bestellt, aber nicht abgeholt
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
Thread hijacked by non-Muslims. Removed
Really? Like, really?Thread hijacked by non-Muslims. Removed
I already said from the start this guy just HAVE to be not-from-here. Are we really down to penis sizes now?
Don't get me wrong... This is directed to Hairwaitthefavjes post:
I can also assure you that none of that matters, even in the slightest (reference to your dick) and this might come as a shock to you, went beyond the tribal-dick-measuring society you SO oh fervently seem to cling to?
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
So accept the consequences of this logic. If an international quota system were created and enforced such that (less-)restive Middle Eastern states were to take in the large share of refugees from neighboring countries, then the process would within a few years result in both widespread disintegration of governments and war across all Eurasia, soon drawing in the United States. Congratulations, you have started WW3.
The problem with consequentialism, like with libertarianism, is that no one actually wants to apply it rigorously - the results end up being distasteful to the endorsers.
There is just one big problem: disagreement over the premises. If done properly, there is not much of a reason to assume that the influx of Syrians would destabilise these countries.So accept the consequences of this logic. If an international quota system were created and enforced such that (less-)restive Middle Eastern states were to take in the large share of refugees from neighboring countries, then the process would within a few years result in both widespread disintegration of governments and war across all Eurasia, soon drawing in the United States. Congratulations, you have started WW3.
The problem with consequentialism, like with libertarianism, is that no one actually wants to apply it rigorously - the results end up being distasteful to the endorsers.
That's not even starting on the idea that it would cause WWIII..
Originally Posted by Husar:
How about we remove the troublemakers them?
How? Stripping citizenship of people born in the country? Locking them up for life, just because? It is kind of late now, anyway, because people have already started leaving.How about we remove the troublemakers them?
Originally Posted by :
So we give other countries the money they ask for because having them here would be too much of a drain on our finances?
No, my argument has never been about finances; but about societal stability.So we give other countries the money they ask for because having them here would be too much of a drain on our finances?
Originally Posted by :
Yes, because Norway before the occupation was just like Iraq before colonialism.
The perpetrators were Iraqi, and they attacked other Iraqis on their own initiative. Ergo Iraqis, specifically these Iraqis, ruined Iraq.Yes, because Norway before the occupation was just like Iraq before colonialism.
Originally Posted by :
Europeans always got along just fine and accepted the borders given to them by their foreign overlords.
Indeed they didn't, it just so happens that we don't single out the foreign powers as the ones to blame for the violence. People unhappy with the government or the borders don't have to start massacring people because of it, which is why contemporary historical interpretation tends to be harsh on such groups (e.g. violent nationalists).Europeans always got along just fine and accepted the borders given to them by their foreign overlords.
They are not let off the hook because of evil foreigners or past events that just had to be avenged. Past events help explain why such groups came into existence, but the destruction they caused would not have happened without them.
By saying things like "the West/US ruined Iraq", you risk encouraging more violence in the country. If it's not my own acts of violence that are destroying my country, then I can just carry on. It's not my fault; the US and the colonial powers ruined my country, and now I have to fix it by creating a bloodbath.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I'm sure if Germany invaded Norway again to slaughter everyone, you'd be happy to live in a tent in northern Sweden for the rest of your life. And you wouldn't bring any clothes or a smartphone because then you'd obviously just be there for the money.
They would be doing fine. I've heard that life in Norway is much more expensive than in Sweden. Or anywhere in Europe for that matter. So the invaders will soon find it hard to foot the bills and would have to withdraw or admit themselves bankrupt.I'm sure if Germany invaded Norway again to slaughter everyone, you'd be happy to live in a tent in northern Sweden for the rest of your life. And you wouldn't bring any clothes or a smartphone because then you'd obviously just be there for the money.
Originally Posted by :
If done properly, there is not much of a reason to assume that the influx of Syrians would destabilise these countries.
If done properly, there is not much of a reason to assume that the influx of Syrians would destabilise these countries.
If done properly, there is no reason to assume that the influx of <X> would destabilize <Y>.
I criticize you for entertaining unexamined alternatives, so you respond by further abstracting?
tribal dick measuring ftw. Swedes are sweet, I dated an expat so color me shocked when I realize someone like you exists. This doesn't change the fact that you live in freezeball country and that's why you have a chip on your shoulder, something about interracial relationships gets on your nerves no doubt. I just find it appalling that your first response to a diss to your country/region is to target what you believe to be my race. Quite defensive about your genitals, nobody needs to know buddy I was only talking about the geographically fd turd you call home.
I asked a Swede in Tomorrowland what Sweden's known for? Said "Ultimate Fighting," four months later Alexander Gustaffson gets mollywhopped by a black dude in Sweden. Going to get owned by another one next month.
Low self-esteem = prejudice, irrational hatred
Sweden has a bigger problem if you are any indication of what the general public feel.
You got a boring sex life if it's all white. Asian, brown, black, a real man doesn't discriminate when it comes to pussy. Nice play on words with this random name btw. Levels of corniness within you. Must be the life of EVERY party.
(stop double-spacing your posts every sentence attention ho)
USA
I asked a Swede in Tomorrowland what Sweden's known for? Said "Ultimate Fighting," four months later Alexander Gustaffson gets mollywhopped by a black dude in Sweden. Going to get owned by another one next month.
Low self-esteem = prejudice, irrational hatred
Sweden has a bigger problem if you are any indication of what the general public feel.
You got a boring sex life if it's all white. Asian, brown, black, a real man doesn't discriminate when it comes to pussy. Nice play on words with this random name btw. Levels of corniness within you. Must be the life of EVERY party.
(stop double-spacing your posts every sentence attention ho)
USA
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
I criticize you for entertaining unexamined alternatives [...]
That's not the way your post comes across to me, but rather "this will happen".I criticize you for entertaining unexamined alternatives [...]
How to do it properly is a question local authorities would be best poised to answer. It could involve creating separate societies within camps, complete with schooling, healthcare and commerce in order to the keep the movement of people in and out of the camp at a minimum. Alternatively, it could involve rapidly integrating the refugees by e.g. launching special programmes to employ them. Or a strategic combination of the two.
My main assertion is that critical destabilisation of an Arab country caused by such an influx is considerably less likely than negative effects in European societies that are already evident here (and that could get a lot worse still; all the way up to the catastrophic scenarios you illustrate); negative effects that should not be more likely to occur in these Arab countries.
Originally Posted by Viking:
It could involve creating separate societies within camps, complete with schooling, healthcare and commerce in order to the keep the movement of people in and out of the camp at a minimum.
I see, taking the Warsaw ghetto as a blueprint since it is a tried and proven method for keeping the It could involve creating separate societies within camps, complete with schooling, healthcare and commerce in order to the keep the movement of people in and out of the camp at a minimum.
The lovely persons in the Middle East often do this with Westerners already which no one seems to bat an eyelid at, and there is no "respect everyone's cultural background" - more the "do as we say or you are in trouble". Why should the new influx be treated any better?
Originally Posted by :
My main assertion is that critical destabilisation of an Arab country caused by such an influx is considerably less likely than negative effects in European societies that are already evident here (and that could get a lot worse still; all the way up to the catastrophic scenarios you illustrate); negative effects that should not be more likely to occur in these Arab countries.
Negative effects are already evident in European societies, yet similar negative effects but worse by an order of magnitude would not be likely in Middle Eastern societies because they "have similar cultures"? Are you getting this stuff from Samuel Huntington or something? My main assertion is that critical destabilisation of an Arab country caused by such an influx is considerably less likely than negative effects in European societies that are already evident here (and that could get a lot worse still; all the way up to the catastrophic scenarios you illustrate); negative effects that should not be more likely to occur in these Arab countries.
I'm afraid realistic thinking beats diaphanous dialectics every time. Adding national and ethnic animosity, social unrest, and economic deadweight to countries that are already unstable and economically-fragile quite clearly would lead to very rapid regional degeneration if ever actually implemented through mediated population transfers.
For all the problems Europe has had with the refugee influxes, they have only now, after all these years, reached the point of becoming mildly-troubling precisely because European countries have been in such a good position (compared to most of the world) to withstand the experience.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
The lovely persons in the Middle East often do this with Westerners already which no one seems to bat an eyelid at, and there is no "respect everyone's cultural background" - more the "do as we say or you are in trouble". Why should the new influx be treated any better?
What are the things westerners cannot do in the ME?The lovely persons in the Middle East often do this with Westerners already which no one seems to bat an eyelid at, and there is no "respect everyone's cultural background" - more the "do as we say or you are in trouble". Why should the new influx be treated any better?
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5:
What are the things westerners cannot do in the ME?
How they dressWhat are the things westerners cannot do in the ME?
Hold hands in public
Kiss in public
Drink in public
Live together if not married.
Discuss religion that is not Islam publically.
Live there if they don't have a job.
Originally Posted by Husar:
I see, taking the Warsaw ghetto as a blueprint since it is a tried and proven method for keeping theracial cultural purity of a country intact.
Of course not; even when considering the inherent limitations of an internment area, the ghettos were not intended to be humane.I see, taking the Warsaw ghetto as a blueprint since it is a tried and proven method for keeping the
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Negative effects are already evident in European societies, yet similar negative effects but worse by an order of magnitude would not be likely in Middle Eastern societies because they "have similar cultures"? Are you getting this stuff from Samuel Huntington or something?
Do tell me what kind of cultural shocks Syrians resettling in Gulf states would face. Headgear-related? Lack of tribal identity?Negative effects are already evident in European societies, yet similar negative effects but worse by an order of magnitude would not be likely in Middle Eastern societies because they "have similar cultures"? Are you getting this stuff from Samuel Huntington or something?
Originally Posted by :
I'm afraid realistic thinking beats diaphanous dialectics every time. Adding national and ethnic animosity, social unrest, and economic deadweight to countries that are already unstable and economically-fragile quite clearly would lead to very rapid regional degeneration if ever actually implemented through mediated population transfers.
For all the problems Europe has had with the refugee influxes, they have only now, after all these years, reached the point of becoming mildly-troubling precisely because European countries have been in such a good position (compared to most of the world) to withstand the experience.
One of the most fragile countries in the ME that is currently at peace is precisely Lebanon; and despite little funds available for the camps there; I have yet to see any signs that the country has become significantly more unstable because of the refugees.I'm afraid realistic thinking beats diaphanous dialectics every time. Adding national and ethnic animosity, social unrest, and economic deadweight to countries that are already unstable and economically-fragile quite clearly would lead to very rapid regional degeneration if ever actually implemented through mediated population transfers.
For all the problems Europe has had with the refugee influxes, they have only now, after all these years, reached the point of becoming mildly-troubling precisely because European countries have been in such a good position (compared to most of the world) to withstand the experience.
Originally Posted by :
LEBANON has taken in 1.1 million registered refugees and others who are not registered. Government officials put the overall number at 1.5 million. With an estimated population of about 4.5 million, Lebanon has the highest per-capita number of Syrian refugees, accounting for about 1 in 4 people in the country. With half a million Palestinians remaining in refugee camps established six decades ago, the government has been reluctant to set up formal refugee camps for the Syrians.
JORDAN says it has taken in 1.4 million Syrians, although the UNHCR counts 629,266 registered refugees. Jordan prides itself on its hospitality toward these and other refugees, but the high numbers — about 20% of the population, based on government figures — have taxed the small kingdom, already struggling with strained resources such as energy and water.
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/...908-story.htmlLEBANON has taken in 1.1 million registered refugees and others who are not registered. Government officials put the overall number at 1.5 million. With an estimated population of about 4.5 million, Lebanon has the highest per-capita number of Syrian refugees, accounting for about 1 in 4 people in the country. With half a million Palestinians remaining in refugee camps established six decades ago, the government has been reluctant to set up formal refugee camps for the Syrians.
JORDAN says it has taken in 1.4 million Syrians, although the UNHCR counts 629,266 registered refugees. Jordan prides itself on its hospitality toward these and other refugees, but the high numbers — about 20% of the population, based on government figures — have taxed the small kingdom, already struggling with strained resources such as energy and water.
So, I don't find your worst-case scenarios particularly probable as things currently stand.
The war will end someday, at which point surplus refugees could be repatriated by force if encouragement turns out to be inadequate.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO