[Luis Dias]

It's not outdated, it's pure smug ignorant jackassery. The only cure for it is time and experience. Biggest extremist perpretrators were all well educated and with high degree jobs. Your idea about who gets to "fail" to integrate or not is just absolute nonsense.

But all you say afterwards is also ignorant. The problem is not the "fathers". Most fathers of the extremists that blew themselves up were *not* radical themselves. It was their own rebellious nature that combined with their smarts, a lot of anger and a huge advantage taking from recruiters that catch these guys on their nets that made it. These things spread through friends and personal connections, not through family.

I'm still trying to salvage anything of worth that you've written so far. It's ****ing hard.

[The E]

Say what you will, but I didn't see many sheiks, college graduates or corporate managers among the refugees. Their behavior so far has definitely qualifies them to be called rabble, at least as far as I'm concerned. It might sound like a certain outdated rhetoric, but it was just a statement of fact.

Right, how dare these people who didn't have the ressources to flee the country before it got really bad suddenly get the idea that getting murdered by religious fundamentalists would really impact their quality of life.

Silly rabble, always getting ideas above their station in life....

The point was that those who fail to integrate are mostly unintelligent, simple people. They cling to their religion and customs because they're too narrow-minded to see any other way of living. I've dealt with that kind of people before. Reasoning with them is pointless, even if you completely dismantle their stance using logical reasoning, they just shout "No, screw you!" and go on their way. This is why it's so hard to reform them.

Or they may be suffering from PTSD, culture shock, and insufficient help from the authorities.

But no, surely it's just their lack of class that's holding them back.

The only way that I saw sort-of working is to dilute them and expose their children to enough "different ways" that they rebel against their parents (as children tend to do) and adopt the "local" ways. It's important to create a situation in which their kids will either conform to other, local kids or be lonely. Then you wait for the children to grow up and for the parents to die. However, if you allow them to form a large enough community (which is what's currently happening), they'll never change, since they'll be able to form social groups of "comfortable" size among themselves. And the problem will be getting worse, too.

With "native" minorities that don't integrate (and you're not enough of a prick to forcibly resettle them, or simply don't have enough space for that), the usual solution is to let them form their own state. The refugees are not natives, though, this is not their land, so I wouldn't consider that much a solution.

And you would be OK with all of that happening to you, yes? If you had to flee your precious Poland to a muslim country, you would be fine with the group you're travelling with being forcibly broken up and contact between you and your fellow refugees being restricted?

Just checking here. What would your reaction to that scenario be? Would it be acceptance, or would you resent it?

[Luis Dias]

He would take it with "class". Which probably means he would lift a finger and have the butler do something helpful while he would sigh with the sentiment of having done the utmost right thing.

[Bobboau]

I would imagine if it bugged him that much he would not choose a muslim country to flee to, but if his country run by his countrymen fell apart to that degree maybe he might consider that maybe his native culture deserves abandoning, and maybe the people who's country he has moved to which has not yet fallen apart might have something to it, after all out of all the places in the world he could have fled to, he picked that one.

[Dragon]

Sure, most Muslim countries wouldn't be my first choice, but I'm not much of a patriot. Regarding cultures, I trust an ancient maxim "When in Rome, do as Romans do". My choice of a country would be based on geopolitical situation and possible advancement opportunities. And then? Adapt to the new realia, exploit new options, climb up the ladder. When you're open minded, educated and intelligent, you can find your place anywhere where there's civilization.

And you would be OK with all of that happening to you, yes? If you had to flee your precious Poland to a muslim country, you would be fine with the group you're travelling with being forcibly broken up and contact between you and your fellow refugees being restricted?

Just checking here. What would your reaction to that scenario be? Would it be acceptance, or would you resent it?

I'd make the most of out it. I'd try to learn the language, find someone with appreciation of my skills and ideally, money to pay for them as well. Losing my current place in the world wouldn't be pleasant, but it wouldn't be the end of me, either, especially if I managed to take some starting capital with me. In fact, unless my "fellow refugees" had something to offer themselves (unlikely in your scenario), I probably would meet them for company, but not much else. If I ended up in Saudi Arabia I'd probably have to at least pay lip service to their religion, so that'd be the primary issue (I find all religious rituals more or less silly and a waste of time), but that would be a problem with any deeply religious place.

And yes, I'd certainly take it with "class". Losing your dignity and composure in face of trouble isn't going to help anyone. If stuff blows up, you pick up the pieces and carry on. Unlike others, I certainly wouldn't protest about things being "not like in Poland".

BTW, there's nothing precious about my country. If it wasn't for a handful of people in it that I like and property owned by my family, it could crash and burn for all I care. Given the current state of Polish politics, if we were invaded by someone with a better government, I could even side with them if they seemed like enough of an improvement. Poland wasn't worth fighting for since the end of WWII.

Right, how dare these people who didn't have the ressources to flee the country before it got really bad suddenly get the idea that getting murdered by religious fundamentalists would really impact their quality of life.

Silly rabble, always getting ideas above their station in life....

Did the war provide them with resources to flee the country? I don't think so. And if only fleeing the war-torn country was the point, why wouldn't they stay in Turkey, for example? No, they want to exploit the very exploitable European social security systems.

That said, it's not their fault. For them, it's a logical thing to do. In fact, I like to say they're probably the smartest people on Earth. They're happy with what Europe gives them. That doesn't mean they're not (in majority) louts and rabble, but the fault is on the people who created those system that they exploit. I only said the rabble was causing trouble, not that it's the rabble's ultimate fault, nor something they should be "punished" for. They're simply doing their own thing, it's not an Islamic conspiracy to take over Europe, but a natural result of boneheaded actions by European governments. If they keep acting like that, the ultimate result will likely be the rise of neo-fascism, with dire consequences for everyone.

My entire point that the solution won't come from them, it has to come from us, or more specifically from our governments. Disperse and integrate them, reform the benefit system so that the lose the incentive to come, kick them out... It's what we have to do. Refugees aren't going to help. They will look out for their own benefit. If we can arrange the world so that this also means they work for our benefit, then it'll be a success. Failing that, the problem could be solved by getting them to get out of our way (that wouldn't recoup the expenses, so to speak, but would still be better than status quo).

[666maslo666]

And you would be OK with all of that happening to you, yes? If you had to flee your precious Poland to a muslim country, you would be fine with the group you're travelling with being forcibly broken up and contact between you and your fellow refugees being restricted?

Just checking here. What would your reaction to that scenario be? Would it be acceptance, or would you resent it?

If I would want to settle in this country, not just temporarily stay until the war ends, then of course I would be OK with that. Because you do not go to live in another country and then complain that you lost contact with your fellow former countrymen and have to interact with the locals. You expect that to happen.

[Grizzly]

Did the war provide them with resources to flee the country? I don't think so. And if only fleeing the war-torn country was the point, why wouldn't they stay in Turkey, for example?

The point the E is making is that people still don't have the resources to leave the country. It's more that things have escalated to the point that drowning in the Mediterranean is preferable to staying in The Middle East.

Because Turkey sends them back across the border. Because the various countries in Africa and the Middle East are actually overburdened with refugees: Jordan has taken on 1 million refugees in 2015, the same amount as the EU has collectively. To do that, Jordan relies on the UN funds from the UN Refugee Agency, but the Refugee Agency has been recieving less and less funds. Because the various countries of the EU have, trough their abject refusal to provide humanitarian aid (and indeed taking steps to worsen the situation by cutting funding to the UNHCR) in the face of years of the UN warning that this would become a problem, created a situation where refugees are fleeing refugee camps.

Trying to get the refugees "out of our way" is not going to help: That has been the policy for the past 5 years and it has only created more refugees.

[Luis Dias]

Honestly, I can't take anyone with any semblance of respect when they start referring to swaths of people as "the rabble". Perhaps it's just me.

[Grizzly]

Yeah you're right. But it still bears repeating that there wouldn't be as many refugees if it was not for the EU's disregard.

[Luis Dias]

What should have Europe done? Put "boots on the ground" in Syria? To be greeted as "liberators"? It's a no win scenario. Russia always backed Assad. It's high time we stop pretending everything that is happening "wrong" is the fault of the "weak" western leaders and put the blames where they actually lay: to the extremist assholes, to Putin, to the Saudis who have been fomenting this **** for decades.

I blame Merkel for a lot of ****, but *not* for Syria's breakdown. That was all Assad and Putin's work.

The migrant crisis was also sparked by Merkel's "open arms" policy and the idiocy of spreading out the idea that they were "letting everyone in". They shouldn't have done that. They should have been very precise on who they were going to let in and very harsh on those who would try to use this to circumvent immigration laws and migrate towards Germany. The fault also lies in leftist outlets that kept crying over "refugees" being deported back to the countries (oh the humanity), to their places of origin (you know, Morroco, Pakistan, etc..... ) without any sense of critical thinking. Last time I remembered, there was no war in Morroco! And yet these scumbag reporters try their best to shame all attempts to prioritize real refugees rather than economic migrants.

I see too many people to blame in this. And when that happens, you know we are in deep trouble. It means everyone failed their duties.

[Mikes]

In other news ... what should have been a nonissue is suddenly blowing up in Merkels face due to the deal with Turkey.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-ms-merkel-defend-free-expression/2016/04/13/7f4ab7d8-0199-11e6-b823-707c79ce3504_story.html

And frankly ... I think this now is so stupid that the only thing I feel about it at this point is the desire to get Popcorn and watch it unfold. And in case you were wondering ... Merkel already gave the go ahead and we are now official bringing a comedian to trial in Germany for "insulting a foreign head of state".

The question I'm posing myself now is whether Böhmermann, the comedian, will make a show of "fleeing the country" or actually face trial and possibly insist the court decide whether every single phrase of his "poem" about Erdogan is insulting or not.

Gosh.... Popcorn! LOL.

[The E]

That is a very different topic that shouldn't be discussed in this one, frankly.

[Mikes]

That is a very different topic that shouldn't be discussed in this one, frankly.

I was wondering whether to bring it up here or make a different post and frankly wasn't sure.
The connection being of course is the pressure that the refugee crisis and the deal with Turkey puts on German politics.

It does imho showcase how amateurish the political response has become, which I thought was a good followup to Luis Dias' post.

As it appears the followup to the open arms policy is a policy of appeasing the despots you got into bed with to deal with the mistakes you made before. As stupid as this sounds this issue has a huge potential for innerpolitical disaster as well as opening a new book in the refugee crisis if Erdogan blows up over it. I wouldn't have believed it possible, but Merkel may actually manage to achieve both at the same time for maxiumum effect.

Feel free to move it into a seperate thread if you don't want it in here however.

[Grizzly]

What should have Europe done? Put "boots on the ground" in Syria? To be greeted as "liberators"? It's a no win scenario. Russia always backed Assad. It's high time we stop pretending everything that is happening "wrong" is the fault of the "weak" western leaders and put the blames where they actually lay: to the extremist assholes, to Putin, to the Saudis who have been fomenting this **** for decades.

I blame Merkel for a lot of ****, but *not* for Syria's breakdown. That was all Assad and Putin's work.

ooh, I didn't mean it that way! I meant it more in the way of this. Syria's breakdown is out of our control, but we could have been prepared for the refugees that would come inevitably. Instead, we decommissioned the things we put in place for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Luis Dias]

Hmm that might be the first time ever I see foreigners telling me I should listen to Guterres. I'm actually surprised by that. I will do so, don't get me wrong, but still...

[Grizzly]

Hmm that might be the first time ever I see foreigners telling me I should listen to Guterres. I'm actually surprised by that. I will do so, don't get me wrong, but still...

Is he that controversial? There's also a transcript in there somewhere.

[Luis Dias]

No, it's just weird.

I'll explain. To portuguese people, this guy was basically politically dead once he just fled his prime minister office, never to show up in television or whatever to speak to portuguese people anymore. It was a rough time for him, personal issues were absolutely horrible and he just couldn't bear the throne, so he bailed. Next he went to the UN and became this figure for the refugees for more than a decade now. All we thought was, "ok, he bombed in here, so he got himself a job in the UN and now he's all for the weak people", as an act, not as a true calling. We stopped caring about this dude for a long while.

Last year, the socialist party was trying to get someone from the left ranks to come up against what would be a total sweep by one right winger called Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa who was getting 60+% of odds of becoming the next president of the republic this year, and the party tried to place his name on public opinion to understand if he had a shot or not. He totally didn't and he never even said anything about it. But that was the last time I heard about the guy.

Once a year he showed up next to Angelina Jolie trying to get attention to the refugees and so on, but now I guess he's on the forefront of everything in politics because "refugees" became the number one problem that Europe is facing right now. I also think he's one of those who are poised to become the next UN figurehead?

IDK, it's weird to see this guy in the epicenter of everything now. I can barely remember his voice even.


e: That was weird indeed, like a blast from the past. I'm happy to see he's as sharp as he ever was, and his points are on the money. He's a good guy, a socialist (yes, FEAR the socialist, 'murica!), a deep believer in the European project (we can thank him for joining the Euro, FFS what a mistake) and a very intelligent, sharp politician. Who left us and was substituted by a right winger who was ten times less of him, a loon, a thing that should have never got more than being a punching bag, but who got his chance when Guterres bailed. Then, some bright idiot in the EU thought this guy was the **** and named him the "President of the European Commission" and basically saved Portugal from his governance. Yeah, weird times.