To Hijab or not to Hijab

[Husar]

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?
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.

[Viking]

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).

Solve one problem, create another.

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.

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.

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.

[Husar]

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?

[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?

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.

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!

[Kadagar_AV]

wrote stuff

Yeah...

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.

[Husar]

Let's face the facts, shall we? Just for a moment?

I'm waiting.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm waiting.

For what?

I think I made myself perfectly clear...

Sie sitzen da wie bestellt, aber nicht abgeholt

[Viking]

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.

That's not even starting on the idea that it would cause WWIII..

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Gilrandir]

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.

[Montmorency]

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?

[AE Bravo]

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

[Viking]

I criticize you for entertaining unexamined alternatives [...]

That's not the way your post comes across to me, but rather "this will happen".

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.

[Husar]

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 racial cultural purity of a country intact.

[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?

[Montmorency]

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?

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.

[AE Bravo]

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?