Author Topic: Berlin Terror  (Read 15479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
News update:

Anis Amri, the prime suspect for the attack, was reportedly shot and killed in Milan.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

I think the main problem with your hypothesis is that it relies upon Europe having a 'welcome culture'. It doesn't. Europe's policy for the last two years has been one where it would rather let refugees drown in the meditterenean or be shot by the Turks rather then actually put some effort into the infrastructure of managing the refugee flow (which sounds incredibly dehumanizing, but okay). It reminds me a bit of the republican primaries where everybody focused on trump's bigotry so that they could avoid telling the world how bigoted the republican party in itself had become. The sound that wailed around Europe these past two years were not not the sirens, not the cries of help from the lost or the cries of desperation or anger or bigoted hatred. It was the sound of the EU phoning it in. Reverse charges and everything. The UNHCR, Medicens sans frontieres, OXFAM - all the organisations who actually put some work into the whole refugee thing have decried how some of the richest countries in the world were so eager to drop the ball and not even give countries that were closer to Syria the funding they needed to keep sustaining the camps there.

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

I think the main problem with your hypothesis is that it relies upon Europe having a 'welcome culture'. It doesn't.

Maybe Europe at large doesn't anymore. Germany is a different matter. Welcome culture right now is not just still quite present, it's heavily encouraged or even reinforced as policy from the top down as well, most notably in currently applyed immigration practices.

Not that a welcome culture is a bad thing as such. The contrary. I'd say being openminded and welcoming of other cultures is one of the better aspects of many western societies. (or as the case may be, at least has been, in some countries).

Coupled with a complete lack of border control, an inability to keep tabs even on people known to plan terrorist attacks (see Berlin) and then ... a boatload of Djihad-Happy ISIS leftovers looking for "a new home" after ISIS gets defeated in Syria and Iraq however ... I'm not sure I like the potential consequences.

That's what I am worried about anyways. I was hoping to hear a response that tells me why a sane/rational being, specifically one living in Germany, no matter if leaning to the left/right, having moral or whatever other considerations, should NOT worry about it. Having to worry about a threat like this sucks quite frankly.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 05:12:15 am by Mikes »

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.
After the last vestiges of ISIS in the middle east get annihilated it will be like former nazis after the war, people who went and murdered entire villages of old people and children living quietly under assumed names and hoping nobody will see through them.

And the international terror network will just disappear like the ones of the Nazis? ... oh wait ... the Nazis didn't have an international terror network. And afaik ... Nazis didn't have the motivation for suicide attacks all over the world either.

Sorry but ... wishful thinking alone won't make me sleep any better at night. Was hoping for something more solid.

What for example, considering ISIS religous nature, makes it unlikely from your viewpoint that stomping out ISIS in Syria and IRAK will be seen as a case of Martyrdom and fan the flames of international terror even more?

ISIS has a reputation for murdering a lot of muslims.
The terror attacks we get, we get because ISIS exists as a statual entity, ceasing to be that will weaken them in front of the eyes of the idiots they recruit here, because after their strength is gone it only remains the fact that they murdered a lot of muslims.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 02:11:51 pm by Det. Bullock »
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 
The one thing that truly worries me about the current "open borders policies" and "welcome culture" and I can't emphasize enough that this worry is completely unrelated to any leftwing rightwing or even moral concerns in general, is the reality of what will happen after ISIS is defeated in Syria and Iraq.

Where will all those leftover ISIS people go? Frankly, they can't really go anywhere and expect a warm welcome ... except maybe to the one country where you don't even need papers to be welcomed as a refugee and even get paid for merely being there? The same country that now displayed a complete lack of ability to prevent a terrorist attack even tho the person who committed it was already known as a potential terrorist and under observation?

Frankly... I hope my worry turns out to be an unrealistic/irrational one. So by all means shoot many holes in that little theory please, so i can start feeling better about it.

I think the main problem with your hypothesis is that it relies upon Europe having a 'welcome culture'. It doesn't.

Maybe Europe at large doesn't anymore. Germany is a different matter. Welcome culture right now is not just still quite present, it's heavily encouraged or even reinforced as policy from the top down as well, most notably in currently applyed immigration practices.

Not that a welcome culture is a bad thing as such. The contrary. I'd say being openminded and welcoming of other cultures is one of the better aspects of many western societies. (or as the case may be, at least has been, in some countries).

Coupled with a complete lack of border control, an inability to keep tabs even on people known to plan terrorist attacks (see Berlin) and then ... a boatload of Djihad-Happy ISIS leftovers looking for "a new home" after ISIS gets defeated in Syria and Iraq however ... I'm not sure I like the potential consequences.

That's what I am worried about anyways. I was hoping to hear a response that tells me why a sane/rational being, specifically one living in Germany, no matter if leaning to the left/right, having moral or whatever other considerations, should NOT worry about it. Having to worry about a threat like this sucks quite frankly.

Right, which is why that aforementioned and neglected infrastructure is important. I can't really go and say "everything will be fine" considering how "How do we deal with the consequences of Iraq" is a problem that Europe has ignored for the past 6 years, deciding to defund the systems that may have helped with cases like this. The refugee crisis, and all problems associated with it, are the result of an ostrich policy that Merkel has, despite best efforts, failed to turn around. These are all symptoms of a larger problem, in part one of how the systems of the EU prevent decisive action, in part because the approach to economic troubles appear to have been "Cut funding to everything and damn the consequences" - and mainly just because the current destabilization of the middle east is the result of foreign policies that Germany had protested. This has been warned about for years, and under those circumstances there's rather little we can do except ensuring that we have those policies and systems in place next time around, and that we don't forget why we have those policies and systems as soon as an economic crunch happens.

There's little point in worrying about something you can't change :blah:. That being said, that this is not a total surprise to the intelligence services does mean that there's a clear cut and pragmatic solution that can be achieved without turning to becoming a dictatorship or indiscriminate surveillance. It's not like those systems didn't stop people before (they did) - it means that they could be doing a better job but it also means that the problem can be resolved by them doing a better job.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 06:40:26 am by -Joshua- »

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
@niffiwan:  Yes, the Battle of Britain and London Blitz


Maybe, but surely only insofar as clamping down weakens the country, causes internal strife, shapes their foreign policy, and so on. It's not like jihadist terrorists gain anything by some european country doing those things, as such. If basically everyone was on the political right and thus clamping down on <whatever the political right actually wants to clamp down on> was something about which there is no political division, then the terrorists wouldn't have achieved anything (except some fame that might attract recruits). Same thing if everyone collectively agreed to basically ignore what happened and to not enact any changes in policy because of it.

That comes with the terribly big assumption that all they want is for the West to clamp down on taking in refugees so that they'll have more victims to abuse. Which might certainly be a big part of it, but also it'd be pretty myopic to think that those guys don't have a massive axe to grind with the West anyway, regardless of refugees.

Besides, it's being left rather unclear what the political right supposedly wants done now that would sacrifice democracy and liberties and all that. Mostly it seems to have been, since forever, about restricting MENA immigration.

I had a great detailed reply written up to this at 2:30 AM when I was awake from the soreness after my dental surgery, and then my daughter started puking and I closed the browser.  So this is the less great less detailed reply:

Islamic terrorists have attacked countries all over the globe; they have aimed for and received significant media attention in a few of the Western democracies in particular: the United States, France, and Great Britain.  Why?  Contrary to the rhetoric, the leadership of the whack-a-mole terrorist organizations have no illusions about "destroying" the West, nor do they intend to.  Why focus on the Western democracies with the most damaging attacks?  Easy:

1.  Russia already essentially capitulated over Chechnya.  Russian expansionism into Islamic areas is now quite low.
2.  Eastern Europe can't get its own **** together, and it certainly doesn't care to either interfere with Islamic radicals, or take in ordinary Muslims.
3.  Historically, the US, GB, and France have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of the Western interference in Islamic countries.  They were also among the most willing to take in Muslim immigrants.  Mounting terrorist attacks against these nations has already led to and is likely to increase the following chain of events that benefit Islamic extremists:

A.  Hysterical media reaction to any attack.
B.  Knee-jerk public reaction to the attack favoring a combination of increased "security state," consequently decreased civil liberties, and a measurable reduction in support for their Muslim populations.
C.  Political reaction to the public reaction.  This is how we get bad security laws, increased surveillance state, and expensive security apparatus.
D.  Increased scrutiny of all immigrants and minority populations, and especially Muslim immigrants, making it more difficult for them to flee the extremists in their own countries, and generating hostility towards even those who have integrated in their new countries.
E.  Public and political calls for reduced or abolished intervention (even in the face of human rights disasters and genocides; see most recently "Aleppo") by Western countries in areas controlled by Islamic extremists.
F.  Propaganda by Islamic extremists showing the oppression of Muslims by the West, driving greater recruitment and opposition to Western influence in their core territories, and allowing a tighter grip of control by the extremists.

The fact remains, any American supporter of - for example - Trump's immigration plans regarding Muslims or "target countries" has a far greater risk of dying from a bullet fired out of a legal gun belonging to another adherent of that ideology in the United States than they have risk of even injury in a terrorist attack carried out under the banner of radical Islam.  I don't dispute that terrorist attacks are reprehensible or that we should do our utmost to stop them, but collectively the West is beginning to lose perspective on this issue and it plays entirely into the hands of the people running the show on the other side.  While NATO has been faffing about wringing its political hands about ISIS, Assad just finished crushing his majority populace again, reinvigorating a strategic Russia ally in the region and weakening NATO's interests.

So yeah, the political "right" needs to grow the **** up and go sit on its Cold War grandpa's knee and learn about some ****ing history, because the modern right is about ready to capitulate and allow 60 years of relative global stability to crumble because they're either hiding under their beds, or pretending to hide under their beds to win political power.  The Trump's, Le Pen's, Farange's, Wilders, Leitch's, etc of the world can **** right off back into the cowardly ignorant holes they crawled out of.  Say what you will of George W Bush's idiocy, at least the man understood the basic precepts of recent history.  I like Obama, but he has presided over a period of American withdrawal from the world stage and the world is NOT better off for it.  Meanwhile, the remainder of NATO cannot go it without the United States.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 
I wouldn't be so sure about little terrorism in Russia. They've never had their news media report things contrary to reality... right?

 
You can't really shove that kind ofthing under the rug in today's era.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
TBH, at this point, if it wasn't for the fact that the nationalists in the West will invariably turn on other people (Poles, Armenians, Tatars, you name it) after "dealing with" Arabs, I'd be looking forward to both ISIS and nationalists achieving their goal of Islam/West war. I don't know what ISIS is thinking, but if we ever wanted to simply destroy them, we would. The only thing is that so far, we've been trying to destroy them without causing collateral damage. If the power in Western countries is seized by people with no such inhibitions, they wouldn't stand a chance against a single Western country committed to a total war. If we were willing to shell their cities to dust and carpet-bomb them into oblivion, we would've done so (well, the latter would involve borrowing bombers from the US, but I think you catch my drift). Poland would have trouble (mostly for economic reasons), but Germany wouldn't and for the US, it's just a matter of pressing button (of course, the UN would scream bloody murder, but I don't think that any country would actually start a war with the US just over nuking ISIS territory). By inciting nationalist sentiments in the West, ISIS is digging a grave for itself, its own people and plenty of innocent Arabs along the line.

Doom and gloom aside, I'm not so against an idea of sacrificing some freedoms for safety, especially if keeping the status quo would allow terrorists to keep killing people. Nobody wants to die in a terrorist attack, if it means you can't walk around after dark, so be it. Saving lives is more important, freedom is of little use to the dead. The problem is, most proposals currently being trumpeted are completely misaimed. For example, TSA in the US has failed to stop a single terrorist attack, but what it succeeded in doing is causing a huge inconvenience, increase panic and cause people to be hostile to the idea of security measures in general. There, freedoms have been sacrificed for nothing, which understandably ticks people off. Stuff like banning Muslim dress has exactly zero effect on the actual ability to prevent a terrorist attack, in fact increasing its likelihood by pissing off Muslims. Terrorism is always a catch-22, if you ignore them, they'll keep killing you and if you react, they have achieved their goal. What we can do is act efficiently within this catch. Instead of "flashy" and pointless anti-terrorism measures to appease the public, we should only implement measures that work (and quickly back off those that prove not to).

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Regarding the clothing ban, that's an interesting one. I would not object if Finland was to instate a bans regarding Muslim women clothing. The reason for that is simply the women rights to choose whatever clothing they want, and traditionally Finland has been one of the forerunners on women rights. So my reason has nothing to do with stopping terrorism, but enforcing the women rights for the minorities too. And yes I'm aware there are moderate Muslims who don't care about that. Those that we have do.

Interestingly, the feminist movement has also been very quiet about the women oppression by Muslim culture, although this is clearly visible for pretty much anyone looking. Can't escape the feeling they would be screaming very very loud if it were Finnish men doing this. So this double standard has to end.

The worrifying thing is that the German police was not able to thwart this despite the guy being on their watchlist as a potential terrorist. The unfortunate generalization of this is that the intelligence services are not any better than they were before despite the more intrusive digital surveying methods; Secret Services have quite poor track record of stopping anything. More often than not the suspects are caught in standard police check ups such as the perpetrator of Berlin case.

Makes me wonder who tipped of Arlanda airport in Stockholm, it was reported that a plane was boarded by the police and all passenger passports were checked. If it was related to Berlin, the tip lead the officials to the completely opposite direction.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
You can be assured that MP-Ryan reply is mostly wrong. Him praising Bush is a huge red flag, as it was his foreign policy that is to a large degree responsible for this mess.

The main strategic goal of islamic extremists is to spread backward MENA brand of islam worldwide in order to ensure a fat future recruitment pool all over the world. They want to go from a MENA power to a global power. They need to be contained before they can be destroyed.

Due to open border policies, committing terrorist attacks in the West is actually extremely easy and if ISIS truly wanted to, there would be attacks every week. All they have to do is walk over unchecked and start shooting or driving into people. Thats the state of security currently. The fact that there are no attacks every week shows that the terrorists are showing restraint, and the cause is probably them being afraid of triggering a nationalist backslash prematurely, which would be bad for their long term plans.

The Trumps of this world usually want MORE military action against ISIS, so your point about "withdrawal from the world stage" is entirely wrong. It is not withdrawal, just a badly needed reassessment of targets.

Also, whats with that whining about Assad? You really want Bush 2.0, dont you? First deal with ISIS and other islamic extremist groups, and then you can worry about the likes of Assad, who are by far the lesser evil in the region.

But whatever, western EU is trying your approach, Trumps America and eastern parts of EU will instead wall off and tighten immigration policy, and we shall see who has bigger problems with muslim extremism in a decade or two..
« Last Edit: December 25, 2016, 03:53:49 am by 666maslo666 »
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Regarding the clothing ban, that's an interesting one. I would not object if Finland was to instate a bans regarding Muslim women clothing. The reason for that is simply the women rights to choose whatever clothing they want, and traditionally Finland has been one of the forerunners on women rights. So my reason has nothing to do with stopping terrorism, but enforcing the women rights for the minorities too. And yes I'm aware there are moderate Muslims who don't care about that. Those that we have do.

Please explain how you preserve the womens' right to self-expression through clothing by forbidding them to wear certain items of clothing.

Quote
Interestingly, the feminist movement has also been very quiet about the women oppression by Muslim culture, although this is clearly visible for pretty much anyone looking. Can't escape the feeling they would be screaming very very loud if it were Finnish men doing this. So this double standard has to end.

Ah yes, the good old "Why don't you care about <thing I think is important>" bit.

Quote
The worrifying thing is that the German police was not able to thwart this despite the guy being on their watchlist as a potential terrorist. The unfortunate generalization of this is that the intelligence services are not any better than they were before despite the more intrusive digital surveying methods; Secret Services have quite poor track record of stopping anything. More often than not the suspects are caught in standard police check ups such as the perpetrator of Berlin case.

Okay. No.

You cannot arrest someone just because they have expressed sympathy for terrorists (Well, you can, but you kinda can't call yourself a liberal democracy afterwards). Even a professed willingness to join a terrorist group isn't something you can arrest someone over.

You can be assured that MP-Ryan reply is mostly wrong. Him praising Bush is a huge red flag, as it was his foreign policy that is to a large degree responsible for this mess.

Guess how I know you haven't actually read his post.

Quote
The main strategic goal of islamic extremists is to spread backward MENA brand of islam worldwide in order to ensure a fat future recruitment pool all over the world. They want to go from a MENA power to a global power. They need to be contained before they can be destroyed.

And you would have us increase their recruiting pool by slamming our doors shut.

Quote
Due to open border policies, committing terrorist attacks in the West is actually extremely easy and if ISIS truly wanted to, there would be attacks every week. All they have to do is walk over unchecked and start shooting or driving into people. Thats the state of security currently. The fact that there are no attacks every week shows that the terrorists are showing restraint, and the cause is probably them being afraid of triggering a nationalist backslash prematurely, which would be bad for their long term plans.

Hmm, yes, the open borders make it so easy. Like that Anis Amri guy, he escaped from Germany and was never caught by Police before leaving the EU and getting to live the high life in ISIS territories.

Oh wait.

Quote
The Trumps of this world usually want MORE military action against ISIS, so your point about "withdrawal from the world stage" is entirely wrong. It is not withdrawal, just a badly needed reassessment of targets.

Wait, I thought Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the warmonger.

Quote
Also, whats with that whining about Assad? You really want Bush 2.0, dont you? First deal with ISIS and other islamic extremist groups, and then you can worry about the likes of Assad, who are by far the lesser evil in the region.

The lesser evil is still ****ing evil. "Don't worry about Stalin, we can deal with him once this whole Hitler situation has been dealt with."
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline rubixcube

  • best username ever
  • 28
Well, too be fair Stalin did die shortly after the war, so I guess that problem mostly solved itself.

As for Assad, knocking him over is too risky at this point, as their is no credible alternative to him, given the people who would overthrow him would likely turn Syria into a Muslim theocracy.
Stuff

 

Offline qwadtep

  • 28
Trump and Clinton are both warmongers, it's merely a difference in goals. Clinton would be a continuation of destabilization policy, likely prompting a war with Russia over their Syrian and Iranian allies. Trump's target is ISIS and the countries covertly funding ISIS like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Hitler and Stalin were both considered the lesser evil at different points in time. I'm pretty sure one of the reasons for appeasement was that the Nazis were seen as a useful buffer against communism (which had already killed millions in Russia). Of course, that went out the window when he signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets instead.

On Assad, though, the reality is that while he's a brutal dictator, he's at least a brutal dictator who maintains things like women's rights and a decent standard of living. The Islamist rebels are would-be brutal dictators without such silver linings. Recall the Iranian Revolution.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Artificial Neural Network
And you would have us increase their recruiting pool by slamming our doors shut.

Hey, did you just admit that you are letting inside potential ISIS recruits? LOL! Wow, talk about a security danger!

If not, then the only recruiting pool you are decreasing is a moderate rebel one.

Islamist recruiting pool in MENA is already as big as it can get, and it aint getting any smaller no matter how many so-called "refugees" you let inside. Islamist recruiting pools in OTHER areas of the world need to be prevented from increasing. Which part of "extremists are trying to go from MENA to global power" did you not understand? Thats the main long term strategic goal for them currently. Exporting terrorism abroad and preparing the situation for a new generation of extremists to arise in kuffar lands. Not trying in vain to hold on ISIS territory, higher ups know well that the days of ISIS as a state are numbered.

Last but not least, EU governments ought to worry about islamist recruiting pool inside EU first. Because it is EU they are tasked with to protect, not random arabs from wherever. Even if it doesnt seem that way lately..

Hmm, yes, the open borders make it so easy. Like that Anis Amri guy, he escaped from Germany and was never caught by Police before leaving the EU and getting to live the high life in ISIS territories.

Yes, that guy who made a complete and total mockery of EU security, was allowed to come inside and roam freely over the continent despite having suspected ties to terrorism, and was caught only after he committed the attacks, which is too late. That guy indeed.

Wait, I thought Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the warmonger.

And she is. At this stage, wanting to target Assad or increase tensions with Russia makes you a warmonger. Wanting to increase military action against the likes of ISIS just makes you a decent human being.

The lesser evil is still ****ing evil. "Don't worry about Stalin, we can deal with him once this whole Hitler situation has been dealt with."

You proving my point? Because dealing with Stalin and Hitler all at once would have been such a great idea... Bigger evil takes priority.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 01:52:42 am by 666maslo666 »
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Hey, did you just admit that you are letting inside potential ISIS recruits? LOL! Wow, talk about a security danger!

Oh, **** off. "Potential recruits" aren't a danger. You are a potential recruit for terrorists. Should we lock you up?

Quote
Yes, that guy who made a complete and total mockery of EU security, was allowed to come inside and roam freely over the continent despite having suspected ties to terrorism, and was caught only after he committed the attacks, which is too late. That guy indeed.

Yes, maslo. Let's lock up everyone who might eventually commit an act of terrorism. That's certainly safe and will not lead to any human rights violations.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Interestingly, the feminist movement has also been very quiet about the women oppression by Muslim culture, although this is clearly visible for pretty much anyone looking. Can't escape the feeling they would be screaming very very loud if it were Finnish men doing this. So this double standard has to end.

There's quite a bit of feminism going on from within muslim culture: There's feminist movements in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Marocco... The dutch president of the house, Khadija Arib, was once arrested in Marocco for protesting women's rights there. The reason why you'll hear Finnish feminists talk more about what is going on in Finland is because that's the stuff that directly affects themselves. It's not because feminists don't care, it's because feminists are far better equipped to deal with the things ongoing with their own culture then they are imposing their views upon another culture.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 06:18:16 am by -Joshua- »

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
Regarding the clothing ban, that's an interesting one. I would not object if Finland was to instate a bans regarding Muslim women clothing. The reason for that is simply the women rights to choose whatever clothing they want, and traditionally Finland has been one of the forerunners on women rights. So my reason has nothing to do with stopping terrorism, but enforcing the women rights for the minorities too. And yes I'm aware there are moderate Muslims who don't care about that. Those that we have do.

Please explain how you preserve the womens' right to self-expression through clothing by forbidding them to wear certain items of clothing.

Yes, after you have done the explaining how a religion enforcing women to wear certain clothing can be filled under equal rights between the genders - which is written as an integral part in the Finnish constitution?

The answer is, you can't. You can always find morally sounding reasons why something should not be done. And a conflicting reason why it should be done. I just select to prefer the Finnish way. It's me, who is, afterall, paying the refugees education and bills.

Quote
Quote
Interestingly, the feminist movement has also been very quiet about the women oppression by Muslim culture, although this is clearly visible for pretty much anyone looking. Can't escape the feeling they would be screaming very very loud if it were Finnish men doing this. So this double standard has to end.

Ah yes, the good old "Why don't you care about <thing I think is important>" bit. 

Yeah. Very much so. Which is why the feministic movement is rapidly losing its message and becoming a laughing stock here.

And for Joshua, I wasn't talking about Finnish feminists' doings in other countries, I was talking about their double standards on the Muslims and Muslim refugees here. And not regarding the tatar muslims, but those who came in around 1990s and later.


Quote
Quote
The worrifying thing is that the German police was not able to thwart this despite the guy being on their watchlist as a potential terrorist. The unfortunate generalization of this is that the intelligence services are not any better than they were before despite the more intrusive digital surveying methods; Secret Services have quite poor track record of stopping anything. More often than not the suspects are caught in standard police check ups such as the perpetrator of Berlin case.

Okay. No.

You cannot arrest someone just because they have expressed sympathy for terrorists (Well, you can, but you kinda can't call yourself a liberal democracy afterwards). Even a professed willingness to join a terrorist group isn't something you can arrest someone over.

Even I've recently expressed sympathy for terrorists, the case being the guy who shot the Russian envoy in Turkey. If there's something what he did right, at least he didn't add collateral damage.

But no, that's no grounds for arrest.

But having a background like this Amir guy did could actuallly net a visit to a psychologist here, which could lead to a possible (in cases the individual is considered too dangerous, involuntary) treatment in the mental hospital.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Yes, after you have done the explaining how a religion enforcing women to wear certain clothing can be filled under equal rights between the genders - which is written as an integral part in the Finnish constitution?

Does the finnish constitution take precedence over religious dictates? Even in cases where said dictates do not conflict with the state's primary interests (For example, honor killings are such an area, as they conflict with the state's monopoly on violence and law enforcement).

EDIT: I mean, based on what you wrote, there must be catholic priestesses in Finland. Funny how that never comes up anywhere.

Quote
The answer is, you can't. You can always find morally sounding reasons why something should not be done. And a conflicting reason why it should be done. I just select to prefer the Finnish way. It's me, who is, afterall, paying the refugees education and bills.

Be careful going down that road. Next thing you know, and you'll be outraged at people on unemployment for not spending your money correctly.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 08:16:38 am by The E »
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Yes, after you have done the explaining how a religion enforcing women to wear certain clothing can be filled under equal rights between the genders - which is written as an integral part in the Finnish constitution?

Islam is not in the position to enforce anything: It is a set of beliefs, it has no pyramid power structure like the Catholic Church does, and even the Catholic Church has no power outside the Vatican. If you roll with the rather binary notion that Islam enforces a dress code you are immeaditely ignoring all the people who dress themselves according to islamic practice of their own volition - which in itself is a matter of interpretation. It's saying that muslim women don't have free will.