[Col.Hornet]

It's an interesting week in Central Europe (well, in my perspective).
...

Then again, things have been a bit more quiet around here, I wonder if it's the winter or if it's just the Finns attitude?

I guess it could be a combination of both



I would really wish that things won't get "interesting" in my country this year. Two big events will take place. World Youth Day <around 2 or 2.5 millions of pilgrims are estimated to come> and a NATO summit in Warsaw. Tough test for all security services.

[Mika]

thanks mate, there's nothing like some vile xenophobic murderwank to remind me which side i'm really on

You know what's interesting? There's a bunch of people around here too that say about the same. As a little background information, Finnish law requires demonstrations to have their own security staff included.

There was actually a demonstration planned against the refugees after a certain rape incident (local Northern case), and at the same time there was a counter demonstration for the refugees. None of the security related people volunteered for the demonstration for the refugees - the organizers of the against refugees demonstration suggested using theirs. The offer was not taken, so no counter demonstration ever happened. If you know any of the security related people, that's not any surprise as they are literally dealing with the issue with their bare hands.

Now coming on the point:
That's the difference between the sides participating in this: the other one is quite loud shouting all sorts of stuff about human values and such, but very bad at paying the bills related to those perceived values - or getting actually anything done. You won't see them wrestling people when two Arabic dudes get angry to each other (although, from the Finnish perspective the Arabs are embarrassingly ineffective at even that). That's while the other side pays the bills, doesn't shout and just DOES the stuff.

If the refugees do not want to integrate, they get kicked out, it's that simple. And I'm willing to lock and load to get that thing done if needed. You know, taken the oath to defend the country in the times of trouble and so on.

[Phantom Hoover]

I hope to god for your sake that you never actually have to do the things you fantasise about.

[Mika]

Huh?

I've already been in the hospital for separating three Finns and one Russian from fighting against each other which was about to turn ugly. Turned to me vs three. The reason I had to go the hospital to get checked? I was too nice.

Been separating people fighting in the bars occasionally when the security staff ain't there.

Served as an assault squadron leader in the military.

So yeah, been there done that. And I'm not the only one.

It's gonna be interesting to see what's going to happen in the Spring time when the weather gets warmer. Will the bush rapes start to happen again (the odds are yes), or has something changed, courtesy of the domestication programs in the reception centers. I was predicting bodies around May on last September, so let's see how things are going to roll out.

[FrikgFeek]

Are we seriously comparing the refugee situation to drunken bar fights now? Only inbred simpletons would believe this situation can be resolved with "lock n load" or some good-old ethnic cleansing. It never works and would only make the situation worse.

You can't just start shooting at them, dealing with civilians is the job of the police.

[Mika]

Are we seriously comparing the refugee situation to drunken bar fights now? Only inbred simpletons would believe this situation can be resolved with "lock n load" or some good-old ethnic cleansing. It never works and would only make the situation worse.

You can't just start shooting at them, dealing with civilians is the job of the police.

That's just brilliant

I take it that you have no idea of the context of the military command "Lock and Load"? That means load weapons with the ammunition you have. Nothing else. The rules of engagement are in place, but when military assistance is needed in this sort of stuff, soldiers go with loaded weapons. Hence my comment.

And why military? Because the police constantly complains about their personal safety in dealing with the angry Arabs in reception centers, they just don't have enough man power available in any reasonable time frame as the distances are large around here - it may take half an hour for another patrol car to arrive. So two officers go stop a fight of fifteen; and Finnish police hasn't fired a shot yet in those cases nor tazed anyone.

Well they did shoot and kill one Somalian culture enricher last spring as he was attacking the police officer with an axe and struck his helmet (would have been a lethal hit without the helmet) - however, locals at least commended that at least the Somali was using an axe so the domestication to Finland has been at least partially successful. But he was not these recent arrivals.

So if stuff turns worse, the only extra personnel near the reception centers are the reservists living nearby in these latitudes. Luckily so far the Arabs have not got as psychotic as Finns where two to four officers are occasionally needed to stop one person, but the tensions are likely just gonna grow in the reception centers. As I said, we don't have the houses for these dudes, and nobody told them that when they were leaving.

And what it comes to bar fighting, that was in return to somebody hoping I'd never need to do this stuff. Surprise surprise, it turns out I've already done that. Who coulda predicted?

[Phantom Hoover]

I wasn't talking about bar fights, you ****ing idiot.

[FrikgFeek]

It's still a really ****ty idea. Even if you never intend to fire showing up with armed soldiers to suppress a riot is a short-term solution at best. It almost always just promotes more riots in response, just look at history. Even worse in situations where the rioters are outsiders with their own sense of nationality and view the local government as the enemy.
History has taught us that these kinds of cases either end in the soldiers opening fire or the riots simply getting worse if they don't.

And again, stopping a drunken bar fight doesn't compare to the current refugee situation. Using force to stop a bar fight is alright as the participants will sober up eventually  and stop causing trouble. Using force to stop riots just makes the rioters seem like martyrs which leads to more riots.

[Mika]

I wasn't talking about bar fights, you ****ing idiot.

 

Ah the tolerant and humanistic. But tell you what, you go on with your life and do what you like and I'll continue mine.

The point of the bar fight was that in that case you are going to separate two drunken idiots from each other, while in a reception center fight you separate two idiots from each other. They are arguing about as equally stupid things, and the techniques are the same, and in both cases the participants will end up in the police cell. So what's the really the difference? Except that in the reception center fight you get more participants, hence you need more force yourself. Which isn't available, so you are suggesting that the police should take greater personal risks, which I find totally unacceptable. So what's your solution then?

Now a riot is another thing, and I think what you are thinking is the historical progression of riots turning the tide and overwhelming the governing forces. In this case I don't think it will work that way. The refugees are a minority, and I don't see how that 30 000 people (maximum) could do something like that as I think they would prefer to leave the country were something like that to happen. Then again I think rubber or rock salt bullets are probably the best way to educate these guys of the norms of the society should they start to cause actual problems. Anything more subtle doesn't seem to be effective so it's back to Pavlovian methods. However, Middle-Eastern women seem to fare better generally. But they make about 10 % of the refugees here, which is something we who have travelled a bit on the globe were already mentioning back then. And nobody listened as usual because of "humanity and values"

Oh and if you were talking about the refugees on a grander scale, then refer to MP-Ryan's posts. Now that Merkel's party suffered a first loss, perhaps EU gets around this stuff. Meanwhile, here in Finland will handle this our way until the EU wide solution is available.

[NGTM-1R]

Ah the tolerant and humanistic.

The basis of tolerance is not in the passive acceptance of intolerance.

This idea has been bandied around by idiots and answered so much there is literally a proverb about it in Sandwich's signature.

Have you just missed that all these years or is the reason your ideas are escaping your gravitational pull their complete lack of substance?

[666maslo666]

When dealing with problematic migrants, as with anyone else, there is a ladder of force escalation that should be followed. Surely even Mika isnt happy to use armed forces to police civilians (or is he). But if the police cannot manage the situation, then that is indeed what must be done.

That does not mean you have to outright shoot them with live ammo. That is truly the last option. There is plenty of non-lethal means that can be used first.

It may be that we will witness some military personnel actively protecting now sealed borders on Balkan route this year. And it will be surely justified. Without a certain threat of rightful violence to back them up, borders are nothing more than meaningless lines on a map..

[The E]

That does not mean you have to outright shoot them with live ammo. That is truly the last option. There is plenty of non-lethal means that can be used first.

Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.

It may be that we will witness some military personnel actively protecting now sealed borders on Balkan route this year. And it will be surely justified. Without a certain threat of rightful violence to back them up, borders are nothing more than meaningless lines on a map..

Why should they be more?

[Phantom Hoover]

Are you serious, man? Why don't you just go full libertarian while you're at it?

Jesus Christ would it kill you guys to maybe, at some point, think that possibly the migration crisis poses actual problems other than popular Western reactions to it?

[The E]

Jesus Christ would it kill you guys to maybe, at some point, think that possibly the migration crisis poses actual problems other than Western reactions to it?

I am very sorry for being so selfish as to consider the changes in my home country's political culture and discourse resulting from the immigration crisis more immediately important than other problems this crisis is connected to.

[666maslo666]

Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.

As I said, the military should be called in when the police can no longer handle the situation. And your statement is not really true, military is sometimes used to deal with situations when there is a mere lack of personnel, such as disaster relief, too. Calling in the military does not automatically mean a force escalation, it depends on how they are used. Although in case of migrant riots that grow to such as extent that police is unable to deal with them, some amount of escalation is justified, IMHO..

Why should they be more?

Well, what are you some kind of a radical anarchist?

They should be more because border control is one of the most basic functions of a state. And they should be more because open outer EU borders would slowly but surely "thirdworldize" it.

I mean, you can admit refugees or not, but calling for borders to be abolished is quite outside of normal political spectrum..

[The E]

Not when the military is involved. Militaries are not Police, they are neither trained nor equipped for policework. Calling in the military to deal with what is essentially a police matter is a massive escalation that will most likely end up with people being shot.

As I said, the military should be called in when the police can no longer handle the situation. And your statement is not really true, military is sometimes used to deal with situations when there is a mere lack of personnel, such as disaster relief, too. Calling in the military does not automatically mean a force escalation, it depends on how they are used. Although in case of migrant riots that grow to such as extent that police is unable to deal with them, some amount of escalation is justified, IMHO..

Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at. Law enforcement is a very different situation, and one that militaries are not prepared to handle well. To quote BSG: Police serves and protects the people, the Military eliminates enemies of the state. When you use military to fill the role of the police, the people become the enemy.

Well, what are you some kind of a radical anarchist?

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself radical. Or anarchist, for that matter; I am of the opinion that the post-westphalian nation state is a concept in dire need of revision, and that nations as currently constituted are far too large to adequately serve the needs and the desires of their citizens.

They should be more because border control is one of the most basic functions of a state. And they should be more because open outer EU borders would slowly but surely "thirdworldize" it.

I mean, you can admit refugees or not, but calling for borders to be abolished is quite outside of normal political spectrum..

Not in the EU. Or did you forget about the Schengen treaty?

[Phantom Hoover]

Removing borders between EU member states and removing all international borders altogether are incredibly different things.

[666maslo666]

Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at. Law enforcement is a very different situation, and one that militaries are not prepared to handle well. To quote BSG: Police serves and protects the people, the Military eliminates enemies of the state. When you use military to fill the role of the police, the people become the enemy.

Thats nice under normal circumstances, but in case of large scale immigrant riots, I still think calling in the military is the least bad of options. At least I see no better alternative. And really, how do you call someone who arrives into your nation and then causes problems? The people? Or the enemy? In this case, it would be somewhere in between...

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself radical. Or anarchist, for that matter; I am of the opinion that the post-westphalian nation state is a concept in dire need of revision, and that nations as currently constituted are far too large to adequately serve the needs and the desires of their citizens.

But your implication that borders should be only mere lines on a map certainly sounds like something only a radical anarchist would say. So maybe in this particular area, you are an anarchist.

Nations are too large? Do you mean that you would like to see smaller states that are closer to the wishes of their citizens? Cause thats not something I would disagree with.. but I dont see how it has anything to do with borders. If anything, more smaller nations implies even more borders.

Not in the EU. Or did you forget about the Schengen treaty?

This is the case because, and only because, the EU nations have became culturally and economically quite similar to each other and went through the process of integration. It doesnt apply to EU vs. rest of the world. And it is a fragile state, if it was up to me then Schengen would be suspended a year ago. Because of dysfunctional outer borders and complete lack of coherent response from the EU. Schengen is a bad idea under current circumstances.

[Col.Hornet]

Another brick to build my "wall of skepticism". Sorry for Polish source.

http://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Arabowie-chcieli-kupic-kalasznikowy-w-Gdyni-n99829.html

So. In short. Two Arabs who lived in Netherlands wanted to buy guns in Poland. Wouldn't mind that if idiots hadn't wanted to bribe the gun store owner to sell the weapons without registration <for sport purposes of that I'm sure xD>. Entire incident in the store was secretly filmed and shortly after an AT police squad got them arrested.

[jr2]

It's still a really ****ty idea. Even if you never intend to fire showing up with armed soldiers to suppress a riot is a short-term solution at best. It almost always just promotes more riots in response, just look at history. Even worse in situations where the rioters are outsiders with their own sense of nationality and view the local government as the enemy.

OK, then, they should GTFO, go back to their own country and clean it up if they need a place to stay.  Instead of abusing a host country's hospitality.

If it was Americans getting roughed up for refusing to wear burkas after emigrating to+ Saudi Arabia, I'm guessing you'd say they should just STFU and either be tolerant of their host culture, or go home, and that they got what they had coming to them.

You can't simultaneously say "help me I need a place to stay" and "this is the way I do things, so now you will do things this way too to avoid offending me, or I'm going to cause problems even though I'm a guest in your country"