Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Col.Hornet on November 13, 2015, 05:07:09 pm
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/13/world/paris-shooting/index.html
I will just leave it here. At least 60 people killed, there will probably be more :(.
In my opinion... this is not a terrorist attack, not a "single case of violence"l. THIS IS A GOD DAMN WAR!
War with all values that Europeans live by.
Of course main suspect is the ISIS. They are getting obliterated in Syria/Iraq by the Kurds, Iraqi military, Syrian Arab Army and Russian Air Force and they will try to bite back as hard as they can. So I'm afraid that this can be just a beginning.
All my thoughts are with the French now.
Stay strong.
-
Certainly depressing and makes me question whether France is really a place I'd like to visit.
I'm not sure that it's a 'war of values' however. Politicians espouse values, but at the end of the day they're tossed aside for influence, power or money.
Case in point, former Prime Minister of Canada Steven Harper called the Muslim Niqab inherently anti-woman, spewed rhetoric against ISIS and against potential terrorists hiding among incoming refugees and at the same time, under his administration a crown-corporation (government owned) brokered a deal with Saudi Arabia for 14.8 Billion dollars worth of military vehicle exports. Saudi Arabia one of the most oppressive countries on the planet and a known sponsor, or country with sponsors, of extremist groups in Syria and elsewhere.
It's all a load of horse****.
-
BBC is reporting 18 dead and a number of hostages
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203
People of Paris, be safe
-
Situation is developing. AT forces began the attack on concert hall where hostages are being kept. Borders were closed.
Some say that French army has been deployed to the streets.
-
I might be reaching here, but maybe this has something to do with "Jihadi John"'s supposed death?
-
I might be reaching here, but maybe this has something to do with "Jihadi John"'s supposed death?
no information on who is behind this
Also BBC live report for those who can view it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-34815972
-
I might be reaching here, but maybe this has something to do with "Jihadi John"'s supposed death?
Some sources claim that he was wiped off the surface of our beloved planet by a drone attack. But that's not confirmed yet.
-
I might be reaching here, but maybe this has something to do with "Jihadi John"'s supposed death?
Some sources claim that he was wiped off the surface of our beloved planet by a drone attack. But that's not confirmed yet.
I believe the US are the ones to announce killing him in some form of airstrike, if that was manned or a drone I dont know
-
The turnaround time between Jihad John and today is way too short.
-
I would like to point out a few things. Look what happened within a few past weeks.
-Russian Air force is getting involved in Syria. They are giving the terrorists heavy pounding, Al- Assad's forces are advancing, liberating a big chunk of land.
-Few weeks later a Russian civilian jet falls down and crashes. 90% of certainty that IS is behind this.
-kurds are cutting off ISIS from their supply lines on Syrian-Turkish borders.
-Syrian Arab Army has broken a 2-year siege of Kuweires airbase near Aleppo. ISIS supply lines to that city from Ar-Raqqa will be cut off within a couple of days. Assault and liberation of Aleppo from ISIS will be possible within a couple of weeks maybe months.
Conclusion? ISIS is losing that war. Russia accelerated that process. And they will try to kill as many people in remote locations as they can before going down.
-
Sounds like Bataclan siege has been resolved via Counter Terrorist assault
-
It's over. But I'm afraid that this turned out to be a massacre. Heard that terrorists were using frag grenades.
-
Again ? Well this is gonna be a fun week-end...
Certainly depressing and makes me question whether France is really a place I'd like to visit.
As a rule of thumb, staying away from Paris is a good way to avoid all kinds of trouble.
-
I wonder how they're going to safeguard from more attacks with those open borders across Europe and ghettos around Paris, London and many other European cities, even if they're only now locking them down.
Also: One of the bombs that went off was very close to President Hollande. It's possible this bomb was an attempt on his life.
Also in other news: The Calais "Jungle" camps has been set ablaze, potentially in response. Don't have much more than that at the moment of writing.
-
I believe that the bomb you are talking about was detonated at the front gates near the entrance to the stadium, not inside with President Hollande.
-
100+ dead now including the concert hall.
-
Bastards. Well, I hope that Russians will soon finish off ISIS. That can't come quickly enough. While normally I don't approve of their rougher methods, in this case, I'd say they go right ahead and do their worst. Few people deserve to be worked to death in Siberian gulags, but it would be the most appropriate fate for those terrorists, I believe. If they'd picked that place to annex instead of Ukraine, nobody would've complained.
Also, I think that it's a good time for France (and Germany, and perhaps other EU countries as well) to rethink their refugee policy. I certainly wouldn't like to see an "Islamic State of France and Germany" pop up some time after ISIS is cut down by Syrians and Russians... We all remember Jesus and his story about a good Samaritan. I urge people to also remember Aesop and his story about farmer and the viper. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how those bastards got in.
-
Also, I think that it's a good time for France (and Germany, and perhaps other EU countries as well) to rethink their refugee policy.
Do you have information that states the nationality of the attackers?
The Charlie Hebo attack was perpetrated by French-born "terrorists", not refugees, immigrants or other foreigners.
-
~140 dead and counting.
I wish I could say I didn't see something like this coming, but the flood of Syrian refugees into European countries was almost certainty infiltrated by ISIS. I definitely didn't expect it so soon, though.
I grieve with the people of Paris, of France, and of the entire civilized world. :'(
-
Also, I think that it's a good time for France (and Germany, and perhaps other EU countries as well) to rethink their refugee policy.
Do you have information that states the nationality of the attackers?
The Charlie Hebo attack was perpetrated by French-born "terrorists", not refugees, immigrants or other foreigners.
The only semi-official statement I saw was that the attack was probably perpetrated by people who'd traveled from France to Iraq/Lebanon/Syria and then returned to France, which doesn't seem like refugees.
-
My prayers go to the relatives of those who were present when these attacks occurred. I'm unfortunate enough to understand what they're going through.
-
Also, I think that it's a good time for France (and Germany, and perhaps other EU countries as well) to rethink their refugee policy. I certainly wouldn't like to see an "Islamic State of France and Germany" pop up some time after ISIS is cut down by Syrians and Russians...
That's unlikely given Muslims make up only 4 percent of the total population of Europe, and that number would go up to 5 or 6 percent at most. I also wager only about 1/5th -1/4th of Muslims actually believe in creating an Islamic caliphate.
-
Bastards. Well, I hope that Russians will soon finish off ISIS.
You think Russia is there to fight ISIS.
How do you get these things so wrong?
-
Bastards. Well, I hope that Russians will soon finish off ISIS.
You think Russia is there to fight ISIS.
How do you get these things so wrong?
They're there to fight everyone fighting the Syrian government. That includes IS.
-
They're there to fight everyone fighting the Syrian government. That includes IS.
This implies that the Syrian government and IS are fighting in more than a perfunctory way, when in fact the Syrian government has no real interest in doing so, and neither does Russia. They have to crush the other rebels themselves, and they devote their energies to this task. The Islamic State is a sideshow at best, because they know everyone else will fight IS for them.
-
Considering the non-IS rebels include the al-Nusra Front, which is an al-Qaeda affiliate, I don't really see a problem with that. The "moderate" rebels are hardly all rainbows and sunshine. If you're looking for a good guy in this cluster****, you won't find one. Everyone, including Russia and NATO, is acting out of self-interest.
-
That's unlikely given Muslims make up only 4 percent of the total population of Europe, and that number would go up to 5 or 6 percent at most. I also wager only about 1/5th -1/4th of Muslims actually believe in creating an Islamic caliphate.
Muslims make up to 10% of France, tough. It is a country with the biggest muslim minority in Europe, hence the recent attacks. And muslims are not distributed equally, in some places they are even a local majority. And the number is rising both due to mass immigration and due to fertility rate differences. There will be no "Islamic caliphate of France" anytime soon, if ever, but there will probably be something resembling perhaps a low level civil war, with a rise in the rate of ethnic violence and regularly occurring terrorist attacks. With increasing proportion of muslims attacks like these will become more frequent, since some fraction of muslims will inevitably be extremists, and some small but non-zero fraction of these extremists will be "brave" enough to take up terrorism. And intelligence agencies do not have 100% success rate in catching them before the act.
I am afraid it is too late to truly solve the situation now, the cat is out of the bag (at least in western Europe). Immigration cant be reversed - I dont think deportations are realistic or politically feasible. But it is never too late to enact much more strict immigration policies in order to put limits on just how bad it will get in the future. I am just hoping the EU wont force us to suffer the same fate with immigration quotas.. :/
-
So what you're saying is that when someone makes attacks to protest the fact that we're trying to get people from different cultures to live together peacefully (assuming that's the reasoning behind this), the thing to do is to give in to their demands? Despite this whole thing working pretty well most of the time?
****ing pathetic, is what I think that is.
-
The reasoning behind the attacks is not that at all. The reasoning is most likely revenge on western attacks against ISIS and our interference in muslim lands. Basically, the terrorists want their dream of a caliphate to come true and are mad we stand in their way. It is not even an entirely unreasonable demand on their part, because sunni muslims with views similar to ISIS are often a majority in many parts of middle east. So by attacking ISIS we are attacking their right to self-determination. This is OK, because their self-determination goes against basic human rights and poses big a security risk for the region, thus they dont deserve it. But surely you can see how it could inflame "righteous anger" from their POV.
-
And yes, if the cost of trying to get people from different cultures to live together peacefully in case of some specific cultures is too high compared to benefits, perhaps its reasonable to abandon the project and prefer segregation to multiculturalism (Israel vs. Palestinians is another example). Wise people know when to give up. Now whether you think pros outweight the cons or not in this case is a subjective opinion, but IMHO they do not, and I dont think thats cowardice to reach the same conclusion.
-
This doesn't have a whole lot to do with multicultarism. These aren't riots escalating along ethnic lines.
-
They're there to fight everyone fighting the Syrian government. That includes IS.
This implies that the Syrian government and IS are fighting in more than a perfunctory way, when in fact the Syrian government has no real interest in doing so, and neither does Russia. They have to crush the other rebels themselves, and they devote their energies to this task. The Islamic State is a sideshow at best, because they know everyone else will fight IS for them.
So, a savage, barbarian terrorist organization ripps off like 2/3 of your country's and your neighbour's soil, slaughtering religious minorities, destroying your cultural legacy <ancient ruins in Palmyra> and you are telling that this is a sidesdhow? :banghead:
....
You know why it may seem that SAA is not fighting IS with full strength?
1. That army has been fighting for 4 damn years, they've been bled out pretty bad.
2. They have problems with co called "rebels" <same terrorist sh** no matter the name.Except the Kurds> and the battleground with these organizations is very close to densely populated areas like Lattakia province, Damascus countryside, Daraya, Daraa. They will have to wipe them all out from these places before they can make an all out offensive against IS. Of course Russians helped a lot because they cover most of Lattakia <populated mostly by Alavis and Christians> with their jets, artillery and armour so they now can deploy their forces more aggressively. And they are eliminating smaller threats first as the "rebels" are less numerous, dispersed, less coordinated and armed.
As for the immigration. What happened in western Europe in the past years is irreversible. These people are already among you, your society, most of them assimilated. There is no doubt that "refugees" were infiltrated by IS and they will bite.
Don't get me wrong guys but I'm now praying that our fresh elected government will not allow to take any one of these people. I would like to help Syrians and Iraqis but not in that way. I don't want to put my own nation in potential danger <I don't care that the chance is very small as they are trying to force us to take a small number of people and Poland is not a primary target. The danger still exist and it's literal>.
-
This doesn't have a whole lot to do with multicultarism. These aren't riots escalating along ethnic lines.
Oh it does, these are conflicts escalating along religious lines, which are at the core of current cultural diversity in French society. These attacks would not happen if France had 1% of muslim population instead of 10%, like it had few decades ago. Giving up this homogenity in favor of multiculturalism was a big mistake and probably the main reason why these attacks are going to repeat with horrifying regularity. People cannot live together peacefully if the cultural and socioeconomic rifts between them are too big. 21st century France will be no exception to this pattern, no matter how hard the multiculturalists will try to bend the reality to their will.
-
This doesn't have a whole lot to do with multicultarism. These aren't riots escalating along ethnic lines.
Oh it does, these are conflicts escalating along religious lines, which are at the core of current cultural diversity in French society. These attacks would not happen if France had 1% of muslim population instead of 10%, like it had few decades ago. Giving up this homogenity in favor of multiculturalism was a big mistake and probably the main reason why these attacks are going to repeat with horrifying regularity. People cannot live together peacefully if the cultural and socioeconomic rifts between them are too big. 21st century France will be no exception to this pattern, no matter how hard the multiculturalists will try to bend the reality to their will.
That is the reason I do not want my country to participate in that cultural crucible. And saying that "It has nothing to do with religion!" is a least naive...
-
Listen up. I only want to say this once.
Please keep this thread civil. It's a very difficult time for a lot of people and I would like this community to express sympathy, not argue the politics of who to kill or the situation of refugees etc.
If you want to debate that sort of thing then please start a new thread for it or use one of the existing ones.
We don't need many threads on the same topic (last nights attack in Paris) - but let's make sure this one is a show of solidarity and not a hate-fest.
Thank you.
Edit: Add religious debate / cultural debate etc. to the list of things this thread should not be about.
Also, stop reporting each other. Consider everything before my post to be subject to amnesty and nobody is getting singled out for any of it.
From here on, if y'all keep squabbling about the above topics there will be trouble. I'm not in the mood today and the combined news of a death amongst my Uni friends (non-Paris related) and the recent happenings in Paris are not improving things.
Therefore, again, please keep this civil and an expression of sympathy rather than hate.
-
several have said that immigration is irreversible, the disturbing truth is that's not quite true.
-
Considering the non-IS rebels include the al-Nusra Front, which is an al-Qaeda affiliate, I don't really see a problem with that.
I never made a claim of good guys and bad guys. Indeed, you seemed to be objecting to a point you have now conceded, that Dragon's characterization was wrong.
...okay, so, what was the point in the first place?
You know why it may seem that SAA is not fighting IS with full strength?
There is no seem. It is deliberate strategy. Indeed, it's actually quite skillful of Assad. He doesn't care for cultural treasures or history; he cares about power, and survival.
Because what you're forgetting about an army at war for four years, is that as long as it doesn't collapse, it actually gets better. It learns, not even at an individual level, but at an organizational one. (Look to the Kurds, who can draw upon their long history of insurgency in Turkey, and see how those lessons have made them stronger; look to IS itself, who absorbed the true ideologues from the Iraqi insurgencies, and used their knowledge to become the threat it is.) The Syrian Army has suffered much, but it has certainly not been broken. The fact Assad is alive proves that.
And against the other rebels, its operations have been more successful than they were at the start. Indeed, it's actually taken back substantial territory in some cases. But not against the Islamic State.
several have said that immigration is irreversible, the disturbing truth is that's not quite true.
If you have a practical means for any nation on Earth to deport millions of people who don't want to leave...I dunno, I'd think Donald Trump would have hired you by now or something. He's made promises.
Or you're straight going to suggest the Godwin Solution. I suppose that is an answer, but it's not an answer that'll work for any European state currently experiencing major immigration from the Middle East.
-
Deporting millions who dont want to leave is certainly possible. Do not try to tell me that a modern developed nation is incapable of enforcing its immigration policy as it sees fit. The only thing lacking is political will to do so (for better or worse, this is quite a radical solution after all). We are not talking about gassing those people, only deporting them, so you do not need to be like Hitler to achieve it, either, This kind of defeatism is just wrong. Also, US immigration policy is a huge joke, the fact that US fails to deport those millions of illegals is thus not indicative of whether it can be done or not at all. If Trump had sufficient political support behind him, he could surely do it.
-
This doesn't have a whole lot to do with multicultarism. These aren't riots escalating along ethnic lines.
Oh it does, these are conflicts escalating along religious lines, which are at the core of current cultural diversity in French society. These attacks would not happen if France had 1% of muslim population instead of 10%, like it had few decades ago. Giving up this homogenity in favor of multiculturalism was a big mistake and probably the main reason why these attacks are going to repeat with horrifying regularity. People cannot live together peacefully if the cultural and socioeconomic rifts between them are too big. 21st century France will be no exception to this pattern, no matter how hard the multiculturalists will try to bend the reality to their will.
That is the reason I do not want my country to participate in that cultural crucible. And saying that "It has nothing to do with religion!" is a least naive...
I don't intend to say that it has nothing to do with religion, but saying it has simply everything to do with multicultilatirism or simply <insert aspect of society I have an axe to grind against> is equally naïve. There are plenty of multicultural nations where these kind of attacks do not happen. There are plenty of countries that are relatively unilatural in their culture where these kind of attacks do happen. Advocating to treat people with hostility based on where they come from based on this attack is at best vulture politics.
Especially in these days where most of the people moving in from other places are the people trying to escape these kind of situations. In France this is a tragedy. In Syria this would be another statistic.
-
Especially in these days where most of the people moving in from other places are the people trying to escape these kind of situations.
Not really, I think many of the migrants are ether extremists escaping from an even bigger extremist, or are simply escaping poverty and war, not necessarily the ideas behind extreme islam. They will bring these kind of situations wth them.
-
Except that so far, the terrorists and extremists protesting against taking in refugees have been much more of a danger to society than the refugees themselves, at least in Germany.
-
Considering the non-IS rebels include the al-Nusra Front, which is an al-Qaeda affiliate, I don't really see a problem with that.
I never made a claim of good guys and bad guys. Indeed, you seemed to be objecting to a point you have now conceded, that Dragon's characterization was wrong.
Uh, no, they are fighting IS. They're just not uniquely fighting IS, and aren't focusing on IS much as they're focusing on other rebels. That does not mean that they aren't fighting IS. If they weren't fighting IS, they wouldn't be dropping bombs in Al-Raqqah or anywhere else in eastern Syria.
-
Deporting millions who dont want to leave is certainly possible. Do not try to tell me that a modern developed nation is incapable of enforcing its immigration policy as it sees fit. The only thing lacking is political will to do so (for better or worse, this is quite a radical solution after all). We are not talking about gassing those people, only deporting them, so you do not need to be like Hitler to achieve it, either, This kind of defeatism is just wrong. Also, US immigration policy is a huge joke, the fact that US fails to deport those millions of illegals is thus not indicative of whether it can be done or not at all. If Trump had sufficient political support behind him, he could surely do it.
Children of Men suddenly became a such more relevant movie.
-
I've seen no reason to believe that this attack was perpetrated by illegal immigrants rather than French citizens.
-
The goal of ISIS is to drive a wedge between Muslims and the Western world. This isn't an inference, it's straight-up what they say.
Deporting immigrants plays right into their hands. Where do you think these people go?
-
Mass deportations are not an option. That would ignite chaos on a huge scale. What we must do IMO is to regain control of EU's southern borders. We cannot let just everybody in. That's madness.
I've just talked with my friend and we concluded something. Terrorists performing crimes are very young people. And somebody shaped these people into monsters. We must ask the question who did this and how we can stop them?
Why can't we just infiltrate the mosques and make a list of imams and clerics who are preaching hatred and pouring sh** into people's heads that threat the others? then severely punish them? How is that possible that people like for example Anjem Choudary are not rotting in prison or else and keep preaching their bull****?
-
We CAN let everybody in. On balance, we will gain more good citizens than we will terrorists.
-
We CAN let everybody in. On balance, we will gain more good citizens than we will terrorists.
I'm pretty sure you should clarify that to take into account the most obvious counterargument.
-
We CAN let everybody in. On balance, we will gain more good citizens than we will terrorists.
OK, if you/ your country/ whoever want to do that. Fine. With all the consequences. But never, ever try to force it on others like the EU officials are trying to force my country and other V4 lands to take responsibility for West Europe's mistakes.
-
All these people want is to encourage people to be islamophobic, to shutter their borders and increase the security theater. Why the **** should we give in to them? Why should we give them ammunition for their propaganda war? Why should we follow the idiots and bigots who keep calling integration futile, or even failed? Why should we turn away people who, given a chance to make their own way in our countries, will ultimately be an economic boon?
-
Why should we follow the idiots and bigots who keep calling integration futile, or even failed?
I don't think you can call people bigoted idiots for questioning the success of integration when significant numbers of European Muslims have joined ISIS and perpetrated terrorist attacks in Europe.
-
Why? Because we are independent, sovereign nations. If Germany, UK or any other country has an interest or wants to bring more people in, go ahead. But we do not. We're not islamophobic, racists or whatever. If Muslims want to live their way, I'm fine with that. As long as it will not affect me or the rest of society. But I will not tolerate preaching of hatred towards my culture, traditions and our way of living. Taking the migrants/refugees WILL create a ground of possibility for such acts. Even if 99.99% of them will be good people. One drop of tar will destroy the taste of entire honey jar, as my people say. We simply do not want to take risks that you take.
Just heard that our fresh nominated Minster of foreign issues made a statement that recent events made the acceptance of taking the migrants dangerous due to the risk of terrorist infiltration. Final decision shall be taken soon and it looks like we will not accept the EU's demands.
-
I just want to clarify, as I get it might have not been obvious, I was not making a sudgestion for a good or practical solution, I was pointing out that if **** gets bad and people get afraid on a large enough scale nasty **** can still happen. It's been a while since the extreme far right had any power in europe, it's nearly out of living memory, and the stage might be in the early days of getting set for a return. I also think authoritarian tactics to try an squash it will backfire spectacularly, and that's the only option people seem to think exsist any more.
-
Several arrested in Brussels in connection with the Paris terror attacks (http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/14/man-arrested-in-brussels-in-connection-with-the-paris-terror-attacks-5502293/#ixzz3rUTJ6Jwp)
Belgian police say they have arrested several in Brussels, in the Molenbeek neighbourhood, during a series of raids.
They said the raids were carried out in connection with the Paris terror attacks.
Belgian justice minister Koen Geenstold told the VRT network that a car with Belgian licence plates was seen close to the Bataclan concert hall last night.
Armed terrorists stormed the concert hall in central Paris last night and killed at least 80 people following a hostage situation.
-
I don't think you can call people bigoted idiots for questioning the success of integration when significant numbers of European Muslims have joined ISIS and perpetrated terrorist attacks in Europe.
How many? Out of the millions of muslims living in the western EU, how many have joined ISIS?
I am very definitely questioning the "significant" modifier here.
-
Guys lets not get heated about this, it's not even 24h since the attacks happened. While it is as always a complex issue on how to prevent stuff like this in the future, anger on the HLP boards certainly wont fix anything.
-
All these people want is to encourage people to be islamophobic, to shutter their borders and increase the security theater.
Actually, closing borders and Europeans in ISIS are two separate issues. Increased security on the borders is to prevent Arab terrorists from getting in (a refugee passport was found on at least one of the attackers: http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/14/greek-minister-claims-paris-attacker-entered-europe-as-refugee-in-october-5502185/ ), unless we also made it difficult to get out.
It's not about islamophobia. It's about government protecting its own people, which is why it exists in first place. I haven't heard about Tatars, for example, being a significant contributors to ISIS, despite them being Sunni Muslims as well. What we have now is an influx of foreigners, mostly Arabs, who also happen to be Muslims. This is what I am against.
Also, are those refugees really contributing to the economy? From what I've heard, they're good at taking advantages of benefit systems in the western countries, which have recently been downright socialist (that's why they don't care much about Poland, we got rid of our socialist regime in 1989 :) ).
-
I don't think you can call people bigoted idiots for questioning the success of integration when significant numbers of European Muslims have joined ISIS and perpetrated terrorist attacks in Europe.
How many? Out of the millions of muslims living in the western EU, how many have joined ISIS?
I am very definitely questioning the "significant" modifier here.
I mean I know it's a tiny tiny fraction (the first few numbers I've googled suggest a couple thousand across Western Europe) but how can you pretend it's not significant? Those people don't exist in a vacuum; they're a symptom of some larger problem, and whatever lead to them being so estranged from their home country is a big component of that problem. You can't credibly say that there's no problem in the relationship between Europe and a segment of its immigrant population and then use that as leverage to call people delusional bigots.
-
Also, are those refugees really contributing to the economy? From what I've heard, they're good at taking advantages of benefit systems in the western countries, which have recently been downright socialist (that's why they don't care much about Poland, we got rid of our socialist regime in 1989 :) ).
It's not about what they're doing now, it's what they or their children are going to do in ten years. For one, our populations are shrinking, which means we need more people to run our economy. Second, Refugees are usually motivated enough to get started on a new life; if given the chance, they're more likely than not to be net contributors to the economy in the short or medium term.
I mean I know it's a tiny tiny fraction (the first few numbers I've googled suggest a couple thousand across Western Europe) but how can you pretend it's not significant? Those people don't exist in a vacuum; they're a symptom of some larger problem, and whatever lead to them being so estranged from their home country is a big component of that problem. You can't credibly say that there's no problem in the relationship between Europe and a segment of its immigrant population and then use that as leverage to call people delusional bigots.
It really isn't significant. Sure, it would be better if radicals couldn't recruit as easily as they can, sure, we could do a better job at making refugees welcome and give them ways and means to become citizens, but taking an attack like this one as a signal that we need to start turning away more people? That we need to be more vigilant, less trusting towards these people? No. That, for me, is a step too far. Radicals will always be able to recruit. Terrorists will always be able to inflict damage. As free and open societies, that's what we have to live with.
-
I don't disagree with you that turning on the refugees is a ****ty response to this attack, but if your response to a hundred and fifty people being murdered in one night is 'welp, them's the breaks, no point trying to change anything' I start feeling very sympathetic to the other point of view.
-
How many? Out of the millions of muslims living in the western EU, how many have joined ISIS?
I am very definitely questioning the "significant" modifier here.
European Muslim population is about 60 million IIRC, (correct me if I'm wrong)
I think estimates are about 7000 ISIS fighters in Syria came from Europe. (again, correct me if I'm wrong)
So to do the math, approximately 1/1000 (former) European Muslims are now active, in Syria, buying Yazidis and sex slaves ISIS members.
I put that modifier in there to point out this is a very specific statistic measuring the absolute most extreme of fanatical.
To put that into perspective, the percentage of Germans (who had about the same population as Muslims in Europe do today ~60million) just prior to the Nazi takeover that were official Nazis was somewhere around 50 times that. So it's about an order of magnitude or two off from Nazi Germany, which I suppose is good, though personally I would be happier if it was three or four orders of magnitude.
-
So to do the math, approximately 1/1000 (former) European Muslims are now active, in Syria, buying Yazidis and sex slaves ISIS members.
Ahum (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=7000%2F60+million#).
-
I'm not saying we can't change anything, or that these problems are unsolvable. All I wanted to express, and apologies if I failed at that, was that this isn't a security problem anymore. There's nothing to be gained by increasing security, or insisting on tighter border controls or what have you, the only way to address this is to get these people to a mindstate where hate as preached by ISIS or whatever can't take root.
But that's an unattainable goal. We can (and should) get to a point where radicals can only recruit a couple hundred people, but we're never going to get rid of them entirely. And as long as they exist, as long as they believe they can get by force what they can't get in civilized ways, there's going to be terrorism, and that's something we have to learn to live with without taking counsel of our fears and break our societies in an effort to save them.
-
So here is some news as to possibly why the attack happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW7gqO5i--w
-
Interesting but given that it is from an Israeli source it is one which I will take it with a note of caution
edit
Stopped listening at the point where the channel starts using Paris to promote their own conspiracy theories
https://youtu.be/UW7gqO5i--w?t=3m24s
-
So to do the math, approximately 1/1000 (former) European Muslims are now active, in Syria, buying Yazidis and sex slaves ISIS members.
Ahum (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=7000%2F60+million#).
:o
your right, I ****ing missed a zero there. so 1/10000, nazi germani was 500 times worse. leaving my original post as to not hide my failure.
-
So here is some news as to possibly why the attack happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW7gqO5i--w
well... that is certainly.. an... interesting hypothesis
-
it is fun to imagine some times.
-
The reasoning behind the attacks is not that at all. The reasoning is most likely revenge on western attacks against ISIS and our interference in muslim lands. Basically, the terrorists want their dream of a caliphate to come true and are mad we stand in their way. It is not even an entirely unreasonable demand on their part, because sunni muslims with views similar to ISIS are often a majority in many parts of middle east. So by attacking ISIS we are attacking their right to self-determination. This is OK, because their self-determination goes against basic human rights and poses big a security risk for the region, thus they dont deserve it. But surely you can see how it could inflame "righteous anger" from their POV.
That's highly ironic reasoning given that muslims are interfering in other countries already. Specifically Syria and Yemen. Two countries where civil wars have resulted in Saudi Arabia and whomever getting involved.
Syria is no longer a war for self-determination, it's a muslim invasion of what was once a secular country.
Yemen was a civil uprising by a shia group (possibly iran-sponsored) which prompted UAE, US, Saudi Arabia to get involved to attack the rebels because they're not Sunni.
Self-determination my ass
-
The goal of ISIS is to drive a wedge between Muslims and the Western world. This isn't an inference, it's straight-up what they say.
Deporting immigrants plays right into their hands. Where do you think these people go?
Deporting immigrants should not drive a wedge between Muslim and Western world at all. It is a normal activity of every sovereign nation. If that alone is enough to drive a wedge between our worlds, then living in peace will be impossible.
-
We CAN let everybody in. On balance, we will gain more good citizens than we will terrorists.
Thats not enough at all. We must gain at least as much good citizens than there is good citizens already in our population. Otherwise you are making the country worse, by increasing the proportion of the bad.
-
...
-
We CAN let everybody in. On balance, we will gain more good citizens than we will terrorists.
Thats not enough at all. We must gain at least as much good citizens than there is good citizens already in our population. Otherwise you are making the country worse, increasing the proportion of the bad.
That's not how civilization works. People don't carry an intrinsic moral value. Their behavior is influenced by the environment.
The goal of ISIS is to drive a wedge between Muslims and the Western world. This isn't an inference, it's straight-up what they say.
Deporting immigrants plays right into their hands. Where do you think these people go?
Deporting immigrants should not drive a wedge between Muslim and Western world at all. It is a normal activity of every sovereign nation. If that alone is enough to drive a wedge between our worlds, then living in peace will be impossible.
Deporting immigrants will play directly into Daesh strategic goals. Whether or not you think it should is irrelevant.
-
Radicals will always be able to recruit. Terrorists will always be able to inflict damage.
Radicals would never be able to recruit if French proportion of muslims stayed at less than 1%. These attacks would not happen if not for mass immigration policies in France in recent decades. I mean, if you think that is a reasonable tradeoff, then so be it. But dont try to pretend that it is some kind of new normal that will always exist. It certainly is not. It is a choice of some countries to subject themselves to ethnic conflicts and terrorism in exchange for supposed benefits of multiculturalism and open borders (if there even are any, lol). It is also an entirely valid and understandable position to choose the opposite. Dont try to demonize it.
-
That's not how civilization works. People don't carry an intrinsic moral value. Their behavior is influenced by the environment.
Explain. Obviously muslims are not going to magically all adopt western values just because they happen to move into western countries. That is not how civilization works either. Import people from highly religious societes, and chances are you will also import religious extremism with them, along with religiously based conflicts with the majority. People do carry certain moral values with them.
-
It is a choice of some countries to subject themselves to ethnic conflicts and terrorism in exchange for supposed benefits of multiculturalism and open borders (if there even are any, lol).
Never eat sushi I take? Or chinese food, or British, or French or German food? No Greek food? Italian? Arabic? Persian? American? Ever eat McDonalds? Starbucks? KFC?
You laugh at the benefits of multiculturalism but your every day life is probably rife with the most basic examples of cultural-imports both from abroad and from immigrants to the country. Benefits which directly impact your standard of living on a day to day basis.
-
It is a choice of some countries to subject themselves to ethnic conflicts and terrorism in exchange for supposed benefits of multiculturalism and open borders (if there even are any, lol).
Never eat sushi I take? Or chinese food, or British, or French or German food? No Greek food? Italian? Arabic? Persian? American? Ever eat McDonalds? Starbucks? KFC?
You laugh at the benefits of multiculturalism but your every day life is probably rife with the most basic examples of cultural-imports both from abroad and from immigrants to the country. Benefits which directly impact your standard of living on a day to day basis.
In todays economically globalized world, I can enjoy diverse goods without importing lots of people along with it. And really, foreign food of all things is your argument? If I had to choose between a peaceful country with no religious extremism and terrorism, and diverse food, I choose the first option in a heartbeat. Kebabs are not really that important. But yes, I dont deny that there can be some benefits to multiculturalism, I just dont think they outweight the downsides. Not at all.
-
"I would like to comply with the enemy's stated goals, but I do not see the downside"
-
The very threats that Daesh sees itself as reacting to are those created by immigration - the West's enormous, all-encompassing soft power.
-
Maslo, why are you so willing to give the terrorists what they want?
-
It is a choice of some countries to subject themselves to ethnic conflicts and terrorism in exchange for supposed benefits of multiculturalism and open borders (if there even are any, lol).
Never eat sushi I take? Or chinese food, or British, or French or German food? No Greek food? Italian? Arabic? Persian? American? Ever eat McDonalds? Starbucks? KFC?
You laugh at the benefits of multiculturalism but your every day life is probably rife with the most basic examples of cultural-imports both from abroad and from immigrants to the country. Benefits which directly impact your standard of living on a day to day basis.
In todays economically globalized world, I can enjoy diverse goods without importing lots of people along with it. And really, foreign food of all things is your argument? If I had to choose between a peaceful country with no religious extremism and terrorism, and diverse food, I choose the first option in a heartbeat. Kebabs are not really that important. But yes, I dont deny that there can be some benefits to multiculturalism, I just dont think they outweight the downsides. Not at all.
and it's all there either because someone from that region brought it over and started selling it or someone went over to that region and brought the idea back. Lets take it to more fundamental levels, the number system we use in the west, you know 0123456789 is an arabic invention, gunpowder? China, Latin? Southern Europe, Carpet? Middle East. there is not a significant culture on this planet that is not a product of migration and immigration. Does immigration cause problems? yes, does the Internet cause problems, Hell yes, but I dont see many sane people calling for the internet to be dismantled or limited to domestic access only.
-
Battuta, I do not believe this rhetoric at all. Muslim immigration aligns with ISIS goals, because it allows their ideology to gain a foothold and grow in the west. These attacks would not happen without it. Western badly protected borders and unregulated migration policies are obviously a weakness, not any kind of power. You have it exactly backwards.
-
and it's all there either because someone from that region brought it over and started selling it or someone went over to that region and brought the idea back. Lets take it to more fundamental levels, the number system we use in the west, you know 0123456789 is an arabic invention, gunpowder? China, Latin? Southern Europe, Carpet? Middle East. there is not a significant culture on this planet that is not a product of migration and immigration. Does immigration cause problems? yes, does the Internet cause problems, Hell yes, but I dont see many sane people calling for the internet to be dismantled or limited to domestic access only.
Examples from deep past wont convince me. In modern world, we do not need migration when we have globalized markets to spread foreign goods all around the world and internet to spread foreign ideas all over the world. That said, I am not against all migration at all, but I certainly am against unregulated mass migration and migration of those who are highly religious, uneducated, poor, more criminal or otherwise problematic. Migrants must improve the host country, or they have no reason to be there.
-
Scotland is facing a demographic crisis in the middle future due to falling birthrates; without immigration, we won't have enough young people to keep the country running. This situation is, as I understand it, pretty representative of the rest of Western Europe.
-
and it's all there either because someone from that region brought it over and started selling it or someone went over to that region and brought the idea back. Lets take it to more fundamental levels, the number system we use in the west, you know 0123456789 is an arabic invention, gunpowder? China, Latin? Southern Europe, Carpet? Middle East. there is not a significant culture on this planet that is not a product of migration and immigration. Does immigration cause problems? yes, does the Internet cause problems, Hell yes, but I dont see many sane people calling for the internet to be dismantled or limited to domestic access only.
Examples from deep past wont convince me. In modern world, we do not need migration when we have globalized markets to spread foreign goods all around the world and internet to spread foreign ideas all over the world. That said, I am not against all migration at all, but I certainly am against unregulated mass migration and migration of those who are highly religious, uneducated, poor, more criminal or otherwise problematic. Migrants must improve the host country, or they have no reason to be there.
Which is why I used the internet as it is a modern equivalent in terms of data exchange but also intrinsically causes problems due to the ability to spread misinformation and is a proven tool to groom people, especially the vulnerable into doing radical things.
Also if you think Paris can only happen with immigrants, fine but what are you going to do about people who arrive on a 1-3 month tourist Visa? because believe me that is more than enough time to put something like Paris into place
Scotland is facing a demographic crisis in the middle future due to falling birthrates; without immigration, we won't have enough young people to keep the country running. This situation is, as I understand it, pretty representative of the rest of Western Europe.
Indeed the Baby boomers are hitting retirement age in the UK as a whole 2.4 children has dropped to 1.8 iirc
-
666, you seem to have two locations to put immigrants: 'with us' and 'no problem'. But if you turn these immigrants away, they go somewhere.
Daesh is not afraid of Muslims within its own territory. It is afraid of Muslims being 'corrupted' by the West. And rightly so. That's the power that actually works.
-
Scotland is facing a demographic crisis in the middle future due to falling birthrates; without immigration, we won't have enough young people to keep the country running. This situation is, as I understand it, pretty representative of the rest of Western Europe.
Demographic crisis is one argument for immigration I find somewhat reasonable. But, I still think it is often overstated. For one thing, real economic performance should always be measured in GDP **per capita**, not mere GDP, so in theory it is independent of absolute population size. So there will be no economic collapse due to demographic contraction at all. There will be pressure on pension systems and similar problems, but nothing catastrophic. It is just not a huge issue. Second, for immigration to be effective in remedying this problem, the immigrants must be economically productive, not a burden. This is not a given with muslim immigrants, especially if they dont integrate well.
Taken together, Id rather go the way of Japan and heavily invest in technology and education, rather than in dubious mass migration schemes.
-
Christ. You should look up how well that's worked for Japan and China.
-
Also if you think Paris can only happen with immigrants, fine but what are you going to do about people who arrive on a 1-3 month tourist Visa? because believe me that is more than enough time to put something like Paris into place
Let me say one thing clearly: freak isolated attacks can happen anywhere. But huge, coordinated and **regular** attacks? And increased ethnic violence connected with islam? You will not find that in any country with insignificant muslim populations.
-
Demographic crisis is one argument for immigration I find somewhat reasonable. But, I still think it is often overstated. For one thing, real economic performance should always be measured in GDP **per capita**, not mere GDP, so in theory it is independent of absolute population size. So there will be no economic collapse due to demographic contraction at all. There will be pressure on pension systems and similar problems, but nothing catastrophic. It is just not a huge issue. Second, for immigration to be effective in remedying this problem, the immigrants must be economically productive, not a burden. This is not a given with muslim immigrants, especially if they dont integrate well.
Taken together, Id rather go the way of Japan and heavily invest in technology and education, rather than in dubious mass migration schemes.
Please cite data. For the record, the OECD disagrees with you (http://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf). Bottom line: Migrants are net contributors to a country's economy.
-
Christ. You should look up how well that's worked for Japan and China.
It worked well for them. I am aware of this meme that Japan has some kind of economic "crisis" due to demographic. It is simply not true. All that happened is that their economy is growing a bit more slowly than it otherwise would. But they are still getting wealthier. If anything, Japan is a clear example that demographic threat is way way overstated.
-
Scotland is facing a demographic crisis in the middle future due to falling birthrates; without immigration, we won't have enough young people to keep the country running. This situation is, as I understand it, pretty representative of the rest of Western Europe.
Demographic crisis is one argument for immigration I find somewhat reasonable. But, I still think it is often overstated. For one thing, real economic performance should always be measured in GDP **per capita**, not mere GDP, so in theory it is independent of absolute population size. So there will be no economic collapse due to demographic contraction at all. There will be pressure on pension systems and similar problems, but nothing catastrophic. It is just not a huge issue. Second, for immigration to be effective in remedying this problem, the immigrants must be economically productive, not a burden. This is not a given with muslim immigrants, especially if they dont integrate well.
Taken together, Id rather go the way of Japan and heavily invest in technology and education, rather than in dubious mass migration schemes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_ageing
short version a number of countries in the developed world are reaching the point where there are more retired people than working people. This means that the population income is lower because there are less people to earn the money at the same relative income rate per person, so less money is going into private/public pension schemes, health services, etc but at the same time the number of people drawing on these resources is growing which makes for a massive financial deficit.
Also if you think Paris can only happen with immigrants, fine but what are you going to do about people who arrive on a 1-3 month tourist Visa? because believe me that is more than enough time to put something like Paris into place
Let me say one thing clearly: freak isolated attacks can happen anywhere. But huge, coordinated and **regular** attacks? And increased ethnic violence connected with islam? You will not find that in any country with insignificant muslim populations.
You block immigration? fine but guess what the organisers of these attacks are not going to go away and like the drugs trade they just find other ways to conduct their trade so for terror attacks you could means such as people smuggling or legitimate means of entry like tourist/study/business visas.
Or hey why not convert a Cessna to drop a bomb and fly it from the middle east to europe via small airfields, a pre prepared flight plan and transit Visas?
-
Please cite data. For the record, the OECD disagrees with you (http://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf). Bottom line: Migrants are net contributors to a country's economy.
Lumping together all migration is a common dishonest strategy to make it appear as good. And yet your source shows that while net contributors, it is only barely so. Now show me the numbers specifically for MENA migrants coming into Europe and who are not highly educated - the group relevant to this discussion. I bet this category will be a burden and we would be better of without them.
Another dishonest strategy to make migration appear better than it really is is based on claiming that migration increases GDP, but with no mention of GDP per capita, which is stagnant or even lowered. Beware of this trap, too.
-
666, you seem to have two locations to put immigrants: 'with us' and 'no problem'. But if you turn these immigrants away, they go somewhere.
Daesh is not afraid of Muslims within its own territory. It is afraid of Muslims being 'corrupted' by the West. And rightly so. That's the power that actually works.
As I said, I dont agree with this. If Daesh could send million extremists into Europe, with 900.000 being corrupted by the west, and 100.000 remaining extremists, they certainly would do it. It would be in their interest to do this, from their POV it is better than there being no extremists at all in Europe.
One more thing, surveys show that it is often younger or second generation muslims who are more radical. So do not overestimate this "corrupting influence" of the west. It may work against docile western christians but it may very well not be enough to prevail against extreme islam which is much more conservative and radical.
-
As I said, I dont agree with this. If Daesh could send million extremists into Europe, with 900.000 being corrupted by the west, and 100.000 remaining extremists, they certainly would do it. It would be in their interest to do this, from their POV it is better than there being no extremists at all in Europe.
Well yes, the point is that in reality this doesn't happen.
-
You 'don't agree' with the fact that if you turn away immigrants, they go somewhere else?
-
You 'don't agree' with the fact that if you turn away immigrants, they go somewhere else?
Come on ttuta we talked about this, conservation of mass is a lie.
-
You 'don't agree' with the fact that if you turn away immigrants, they go somewhere else?
No, thats obvious. I dont agree with this notion that ISIS is somehow threatened by muslims going into Europe. Thats what they want!
Besides, the relevant question here is how to make our countries more safe, not how to spite ISIS leaders.. So I think this whole discussion about what ISIS wants is pretty inconsequential. The important question is, will limiting such immigration improve security situation in our countries, or not?
-
can I have a slight asside?
on the global scale we cannot sustain population growth, the world will have to adjust to a stable population, isn't immigration as a solution to an aging workforce in one country 1) just moving to problem to other parts of the world which are even less capable of handling the problem 2) replacing a culture that has adopted a lower population growth rate (something that is on the large and long scale good) with people from a culture that have a presumably higher growth rate? I suppose if the immigrants assimilate into the new culture and take it on as their own as part of the process it would work out OK, but is that will happen? that their original culture is abandoned when they move to their new land? is that what should happen?
-
Christ. You should look up how well that's worked for Japan and China.
China recently implemented the two child policy exactly because they realise that there is a disaster coming if they allow their current population to age without having more kids.
-
that's a couple can have two children if they were both single children, right?
-
No, thats obvious. I dont agree with this notion that ISIS is somehow threatened by muslims going into Europe. Thats what they want!
Uh, did you read the rest of the thread? That's what they don't want. They want segregation. They want no race-mixing or religion-mixing.
-
that's a couple can have two children if they were both single children, right?
Nope. This is an actual two child policy where pretty much anyone can have two children. The two children if both parents are single children has been around for about 6 years in most of China already and had already been relaxed in most places to allowing two kids if only one of the parents was an only child.
In general though the One Child Policy is hugely misunderstood by most people. It's not that you can't have more than one child, exceptions exist for so many categories that the average is much closer to two children per couple already. I remember being very surprised my first year in China to find that almost all my students had brothers and sisters with only children accounting for about 1 in 10 of my students or less.
Basically under the original policy you could have kids if you were from an ethnic minority, if you were in a rural part of the country and the first child was a girl, if you lived in an urban area you could pay a penalty fee (which is what most people did). Or you could do what a lot of people did and register your child as being someone else's and have another kid that way.
Despite that all, China definitely still faces a demographic crisis because large numbers of the middle class tend to feel that having two children is a big drain on finances in exactly the same way as we do in the West.
-
What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so? If a Muslim population immigrating at a controlled, "normal" rate forms Sharia law enclaves, despite being given proper opportunities to integrate into society, how much more so will a Muslim refugee population, immigrating at a far higher rate than most countries will be able to cope with?
-
What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?
I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.
-
what would it take to change your mind? what evidence could Sandwitch provide that would convince you?
-
Evidence that they actually exist from a reputable source of course.
-
how do you define "reputable"?
-
If you need to ask, you probably shouldn't be the one answering.
-
what would it take to change your mind? what evidence could Sandwitch provide that would convince you?
Show me one? Let's see some acknowledgement of their existence by both local and national authorities? How about a legal basis under which they could exist in the first place? Maybe some people who aren't Muslim who've been subjected to Sharia authority against their will?
I mean, there are Jewish rabbinical courts in Brooklyn, that handle matters of Jewish religious law as it pertains to the activities of Jewish religious people. But that certainly doesn't mean that Brooklyn has enclaves where the only law is that of Judaism. They exist to settle disputes among believers, and have no governmental power. Or maybe you think that a divorce isn't real under the law between Catholics until the Church annuls the marriage?
I'm positive there are Sharia-law courts in Europe. (Actually, I'm equally positive they exist in the US; one of my coworkers was asked to testify in a Sharia proceeding. Banking is serious business under a strict interpretation, and one of our clients stood accused.) I'm equally positive they have no governmental support or power, but exist by consistent of the faithful and have only the powers the faithful choose grant them.
-
What about people who are part of these communities who want out and cannot escape? or anyone not conforming to the local faith being subject to harassment until they move out? Sort of like the closed Mormon settlements in the western US or some small protestant towns in the south?
I suppose there hasn't been an agreement on what actually defines one of these "enclaves". What do you think is meant by it? When I hear it I think of small closed communities where the local muslim religious leaders have defacto hegemony of power. I don't find these hard to believe because I know they exist in my country, certainly if you generalize it by removing the 'muslim' part. it's especially easy to believe they exists when I see **** like this (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london) which I'm sure you are aware of.
-
What about people who are part of these communities who want out and cannot escape? or anyone not conforming to the local faith being subject to harassment until they move out? Sort of like the closed Mormon settlements in the western US or some small protestant towns in the south?
That's bad, a statement for which I immediately won the gold in the 50-meter no-**** sprint, but you're describing a social problem the law is already fit to handle for the most part.
And one which, as Battuta has previously noted, goes away. These enclaves aren't North Korea. People who want to get out...usually can get out. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely doable. They're not surrounded by replicas of the Berlin wall, so people and ideas move in and out.
And the Mormon and Protestant towns you reference only manage because of their relative physical isolation, an achievement that's actually pretty hard in Europe. More importantly, people who want to get in don't really exist, and over time these little communities collapse, from the loss of their binding figures and the fact that the ideas all around them infiltrate and people flow out. Soft power triumphs. You should go back and read those posts.
When I hear it I think of small closed communities where the local muslim religious leaders have defacto hegemony of power.
I guess the Jews really are taking over Brooklyn, then. We better do something about that.
We'll have to start by making people not believe, since these leaders have power because people chose to believe in the religion. How do you propose to do so?
it's especially easy to believe they exists when I see **** like this (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london) which I'm sure you are aware of.
You mean the part where it was proved they don't have power, the one that works against your argument?
-
That's bad, a statement for which I immediately won the gold in the 50-meter no-**** sprint, but you're describing a social problem the law is already fit to handle for the most part.
And one which, as Battuta has previously noted, goes away. These enclaves aren't North Korea. People who want to get out...usually can get out. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely doable. They're not surrounded by replicas of the Berlin wall, so people and ideas move in and out.
And the Mormon and Protestant towns you reference only manage because of their relative physical isolation, an achievement that's actually pretty hard in Europe. More importantly, people who want to get in don't really exist, and over time these little communities collapse, from the loss of their binding figures and the fact that the ideas all around them infiltrate and people flow out. Soft power triumphs. You should go back and read those posts.
So that's the Answer to Sandwitch's question. :)
I guess the Jews really are taking over Brooklyn, then. We better do something about that.
We'll have to start by making people not believe, since these leaders have power because people chose to believe in the religion. How do you propose to do so?
By doing to the Muslims what we did to the Christians. Deconstructing their magical bull**** and not letting them get away with anything just because they get brown people points.
You mean the part where it was proved they don't have power, the one that works against your argument?
No, the one where they didn't get away with it this one time, I'm sure this is the first time this has been attempted and is the result that would always happen. I spent literally five seconds looking for an example of some people who aren't Muslim who've been subjected to Sharia authority against their will, but then again I could have searched for "Mohamed cartoon" and gotten a lot more examples.
So this clearly doesn't meet your standard, could you describe a couple of scenarios that you think would prove my argument.
-
deleted
-
And one which, as Battuta has previously noted, goes away. These enclaves aren't North Korea. People who want to get out...usually can get out. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely doable. They're not surrounded by replicas of the Berlin wall, so people and ideas move in and out.
You'd be surprised. It's hard to get away form your "community", no matter what religion it is about. It doesn't matter if you're in a rural Polish village (which tend to be rather religious), a Mormon enclave or a Muslim community. From what I've seen, Muslims are rather tightly knit, as well, much like the Jews (probably due to how absorbing those religions are). I can't recall any specific case right now (I'm not going to refer you to a Polish paperback newspaper, anyway), but there were definitely people suffering at the hands of religious communities and completely unable to do anything about it, despite it being seemingly easy to just get up and leave. Particularly tragic cases do end up in the news. Social pressure they exert cannot be underestimated, it takes an extraordinary (and at least mildly antisocial) person to break ties with everyone they knew in a community for their own good.
-
No, thats obvious. I dont agree with this notion that ISIS is somehow threatened by muslims going into Europe. Thats what they want!
Uh, did you read the rest of the thread? That's what they don't want. They want segregation. They want no race-mixing or religion-mixing.
Once again, this entire line of argument that immigration somehow harms ISIS is utterly absurd. ISIS wants to gain a foothold in Europe and expand in Europe. That is clearly their objective and goal. So, in order to do that they must import muslims into Europe, and even if most of them secularize (a dubious notion), ISIS still achieves success because significant part of the rest will have sympathies towards ISIS and they gain recruiting grounds and thousands of potential soldiers where there were none before. What ISIS is really afraid of is being contained inside middle east with no room to grow globally and little chance to have global reach. This is what we should try to do. To contain the threat. This is what ISIS leaders do not want us to do.
Trying to claim that strict immigration policy somehow helps ISIS is as absurd as claiming that water is not wet. It is exactly backwards.
-
And one which, as Battuta has previously noted, goes away. These enclaves aren't North Korea. People who want to get out...usually can get out. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely doable. They're not surrounded by replicas of the Berlin wall, so people and ideas move in and out.
And that's before we get to the point that Sandwich was talking about people who escaped the civil war in Syria! Is escaping Hicksville, Utah supposed to be more difficult to get out of?
-
And that's before we get to the point that Sandwich was talking about people who escaped the civil war in Syria! Is escaping Hicksville, Utah supposed to be more difficult to get out of?
Yes, see my previous post. It wasn't social pressure that was keeping them in Syria. For a single person it's incredibly hard to escape their own group, even if it harms them. Especially when this group is bound by belief in something. Most people simply can't bear ditching their entire social circle for their own good, and escaping a community like such Hicksville pretty much amounts to that. Psychological barriers can be much harder to overcome than physical ones.
-
And one which, as Battuta has previously noted, goes away. These enclaves aren't North Korea. People who want to get out...usually can get out. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's definitely doable. They're not surrounded by replicas of the Berlin wall, so people and ideas move in and out.
And that's before we get to the point that Sandwich was talking about people who escaped the civil war in Syria! Is escaping Hicksville, Utah supposed to be more difficult to get out of?
A wrong analogy. It is an entirely different form of escape. Escaping civil war is just running away mostly. Escaping a religious cult takes a person that can resist brainwashing well and is willing to cut ties with family and friends. It may very well be be more difficult. That is assuming they even want to escape in the first place. Most of them are perfectly fine remaining conservative islamists. We are all atheists or secular here already so we errorneously see it as some kind of default mindset people will inevitably gravitate towards. I am afraid it does not work that way. Morals are relative and islamist elements inside western society have as much chance of growing over time as they have of secularizing, if not more so.
-
Couldn't have put it better. :) Too many people here take reason and personal freedom for granted. Most people (especially the ones we're talking about) are both highly social and have no trouble accepting illogical notions. The truth is, many people join sects, religious and terrorist organizations all the time because they have a need to socialize. It might be hard to believe that people go to die "because their friends wanted them to", but it's how it actually works.
It is a matter of relative density, really. Take 100 Muslims and spread them among Europeans, with a lot of distance between them, so they're forced to seek social relations among their neighbors. They'll all adopt and assimilate in no time. Now take another 100 and put them in one place, and you've got an isolated community. People tend to prefer contacts with people of similar origins and beliefs if such are available, but if they aren't, they'd be forced to make do with whoever is available, usually adopting to fit.
-
And that's before we get to the point that Sandwich was talking about people who escaped the civil war in Syria! Is escaping Hicksville, Utah supposed to be more difficult to get out of?
They left Syria with their mother, father, sisters, brothers, imams, teachers. That was a force strong enough to pull them out of a war zone and when they start questioning the ideological underpinnings of that community, yes, that is harder to leave, because you are alone against everyone you have ever known and loved AND you fled a war zone together.
-
They left Syria with their mother, father, sisters, brothers, imams, teachers.
Facts not in evidence are being asserted, your Honor. Move to strike.
Once again, this entire line of argument that immigration somehow harms ISIS is utterly absurd.
This is a picture of an actual ISIS publication.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/ngtm1r/Everything%20not%20LP%20or%20Ships/extinction-of-the-grayzone_zpsicdnjljf.png)
Their argument appears to be that we are discriminating against them as part of a grand anti-Muslim strategy. So you want to discriminate against them more, thereby validating their propaganda that the West is fundamentally inimical to Islam. When accused of systemic antipathy, respond with systemic antipathy.
This is dumb. There is no other way to put it, no polite, no comforting way to describe it. Your argument is that we should play into the hands of our enemies.
-
666maslo666's whole argument is predicated upon the notion that Islam causes terrorism, so adding more Muslims to your population means you'll be more at risk of terrorism. It's utter nonsense.
-
not following that, wtf is "the greyzone"
so a few assertions I see
1) ISIS thinks that a clash of civilizations is afoot (NGTM-1R)
2) ISIS wants more Muslims in Europe (666maslo666)
1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. ISIS's ambitions are not limited to the region, they actually think they are going to take over the world and they can't do that without colonizing Europe, irrespective of the viability of such a proposal.
-
666maslo666's whole argument is predicated upon the notion that Islam causes terrorism, so adding more Muslims to your population means you'll be more at risk of terrorism. It's utter nonsense.
If a group x has higher incidence of y than domestic population, then adding more of group x to your population means rate of y would increase compared to the alternative of not adding them. This is not nonsense, this is an undeniable mathematical fact. Analogy from chemistry - adding a solution with concentration of 5% to a solution with concentration of 1% will cause the concentration in the latter solution to increase.
-
Perhaps you should ask yourself why terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle-East.
-
And as I said earlier, if strict immigration control is all it takes for muslims to get radicalized and the greyzone to go extinct, then there will never be any peace. We may as well embrace the ISIS notion of a big clash of civilizations because then it is unavoidable. You cannot appease people who radicalize at the drop of a hat. It is cowardly and will never work long term.
But I do not think strict immigration control is all it takes for muslims to get radicalized, I dont think European muslims are as unhinged yet. It can only help the situation.
-
Perhaps you should ask yourself why terrorism is so prevalent in the Middle-East.
you clearly have an answer to that question, and I somehow have a feeling capitalism, colonialism, or the military industrial complex is involved so rather than ask leading questions why not just tell what you believe.
-
What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?
I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
-
Fine. People who have comfortable lives and future prospects don't usually go and blow themselves up. Terrorism isn't caused by religion, it's caused by poverty and desperation. ISIS didn't come about because 'lol Muslims', it came about because there's been a near nonstop war in the region since 2003 (and since 1979 in Afghanistan, and then the whole Israel thing).
I've said this in other threads before, but the whole ISIS things has a lot of parallels with the Russian Revolution. ISIS and the Bolsheviks operate in very similar ways. They show up, make an example of some scapegoats (usually representatives of the ineffective government), take over government services, run them relatively competently, and violently dispose of any dissenters. Both used an ideology to gain traction with a thoroughly disenfranchised population with little hope for the future and blamed the problems on some Other. The biggest differences are the ideologies used (for Russia, it was Communism, and for the ME, it's Islam), and the fact that Lenin was a lot more competent a general than al-Baghdadi is.
Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism. They'll have no cause to. What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future? Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West. Maybe they'll want to do something about it.
Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism? I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?
Terrorism represents a failure of government, not religion.
Phantom_Hoover also made a similar case once or twice using The Troubles as an example.
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
I thought Sandwich was from Israel?
-
What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?
I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.
-
Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism? I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?
Because they are homogenous muslim countries. That is one of the surest ways to ensure peace. It is hard to blame (or attack) non-muslims when there is no significant amount of non-muslims around. It takes two sides to have a war. Those countries are still crawling with muslim extremists, tough. Give them a suitable target, and they will wake up and strike.
-
Deporting immigrants should not drive a wedge between Muslim and Western world at all. It is a normal activity of every sovereign nation. If that alone is enough to drive a wedge between our worlds, then living in peace will be impossible.
Mass deportation based simply on their ethnicity or religion will not only drive a wedge so deep between Europe and said group that it'll do incredible damage, tarnishing the view of Europe in their eyes for likely decades, it's also an action that is inherently very, very fascist. It's nothing but persecution and the sole benefit of possibly cutting down on terrorists in Europe cannot ever hope to outweigh the negatives.
-
Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism. They'll have no cause to.
I do not believe giving them comfortable lives is enough, there is also an ideological cause for terrorism, one that no amount of material wealth is going to erase.
But either way, you will not be able to give all of them comfortable lives, not even in the West and certainly not in poorer European countries. Your solution is basically "lol, lets solve poverty and live all happily ever after". Good in theory, but not very practical.
What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future? Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West. Maybe they'll want to do something about it.
But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.
-
What's the opinion around here about the Sharia law enclaves that Muslim European citizens have set up over the past 10 years or so?
I've never seen evidence they exist outside the ranting fever dreams of right-wing lunatics running for President.
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.
I never talked about Sharia zones ITT. Didnt you mean Sandwich?
-
But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.
Yeah, suicide bombers have never used planes or anything to get to their target
-
Mass deportation based simply on their ethnicity or religion will not only drive a wedge so deep between Europe and said group that it'll do incredible damage, tarnishing the view of Europe in their eyes for likely decades, it's also an action that is inherently very, very fascist. It's nothing but persecution and the sole benefit of possibly cutting down on terrorists in Europe cannot ever hope to outweigh the negatives.
We can have mass deportations based on citizenship status, criminal history, education and so on. It doesnt have to be based on ethnicity or religion to deport most of recent muslim arrivals into Europe. Western European immigration policies are so soft and unenforced that even a common sense tightening of the policy based on entirely legitimate attributes would allow us to deport millions. This would not drive any wedges anywhere.
-
nuh uh. no baiting please.
Mass deportation may sound like a good thing to you when your family isn't one of them that just barely made the criteria.
-
But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.
Yeah, suicide bombers have never used planes or anything to get to their target
Random freak attacks can always happen as long as extremist islam exists. But, what we need to achieve is to eliminate the regularity with which they are occurring (like they do in France), and also eliminate low level ethnic violence connected with islam in Europe, which is less deadly, but much more widespread. This is the real threat, and one which can be solved if the amount of muslims in Europe is decreased.
Look at eastern Europe, there are no islamist attacks there, despite us being deeply involved in middle east. That is because there is almost no muslim minority, and so islamism cannot take root in society. You cannot have persistent islamist attacks without muslims, lol.
-
nuh uh. no baiting please.
Mass deportation may sound like a good thing to you when your family isn't one of them that just barely made the criteria.
You have a point, as I said earlier I am not very comfortable with mass deportations (and especially not of those already granted legal citizenship status, thats not an option). It is a pretty radical solution and problem is not so bad (yet?). But restricting further immigration is necessary, stopping the problem from getting worse is the first priority. And if such a simple and logical step as immigration restriction causes too much muslim radicalization, then it actually proves the point and need.
-
Because they are homogenous muslim countries. That is one of the surest ways to ensure peace. It is hard to blame (or attack) non-muslims when there is no significant amount of non-muslims around. It takes two sides to have a war. Those countries are still crawling with muslim extremists, tough. Give them a suitable target, and they will wake up and strike.
You realize ISIS is operating in an area which is almost entirely Muslim, yes?
Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism. They'll have no cause to.
I do not believe giving them comfortable lives is enough, there is also an ideological cause for terrorism, one that no amount of material wealth is going to erase.
But either way, you will not be able to give all of them comfortable lives, not even in the West and certainly not in poorer European countries. Your solution is basically "lol, lets solve poverty and live all happily ever after". Good in theory, but not very practical.
What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future? Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West. Maybe they'll want to do something about it.
But then it will not be our problem anymore. If they want to blow themselves up out of spite, they can do it, but in middle east, not in Europe.
The entire reason radical Islam gets traction is because of poverty and desperation. Sure, if you didn't have that, you'd still have people calling for jihad, but they'd get far, far fewer supporters. This is why the Middle-Eastern countries I named don't have significant problems with terrorism. It's the entire reason. And if you think poverty in Western countries is comparable to living in a warzone, you really need to get some perspective.
And it's profoundly stupid to believe that this **** will stay in the Middle-East. 9/11 happened because people believed that. It could absolutely happen again.
Look at eastern Europe, there are no islamist attacks there, despite us being deeply involved in middle east. That is because there is almost no muslim minority, and so islamism cannot take root in society. You cannot have persistent islamist attacks without muslims, lol.
Not nowadays, but 100-150 years ago Eastern Europe had plenty of terrorist attacks motivated by Communism (among a lot of other ideologies). ****, Alexander II was killed by one. The reason for that is the Russian Empire's inability to fulfill the duties a contemporary government should have been able to fulfill. Thirty years ago the UK had a terrorism problem in Ireland, because of disenfranchised people who got desperate enough that violence became an attractive way to force change (and it worked).
Again, terrorism represents a failure in government. Blaming Islam for terrorism is short-sighted and shows a lot of ignorance about both history and the nature of terrorism.
-
You realize ISIS is operating in an area which is almost entirely Muslim, yes?
But there are shias, christians, kurds and moderate muslims around the area. If there werent, there would be peace under ISIS over there. Local ethnic diversity is one of the main reasons behind the ISIS war. Especially sunni-shia conflict. If all of these ethnicities lived in their own little homogenous areas with good borders between them, there would be peace.
The entire reason radical Islam gets traction is because of poverty and desperation. Sure, if you didn't have that, you'd still have people calling for jihad, but they'd get far, far fewer supporters. This is why the Middle-Eastern countries I named don't have significant problems with terrorism. It's the entire reason. And if you think poverty in Western countries is comparable to living in a warzone, you really need to get some perspective.
And it's profoundly stupid to believe that this **** will stay in the Middle-East. 9/11 happened because people believed that. It could absolutely happen again.
Terrorism already gets traction in the West, so your reasoning is obviously false. Western Europe experiences regular attacks and persistent ethnic violence commited by muslims. Despite being probably the wealthiest region in the world. Obviously, it takes more to ensure peace than material wealth. Fighting poverty is important but it will not be enough to secularize muslims. Because there is also an ideological war behind this violence, one that goes beyond simple materialism.
Not nowadays, but 100-150 years ago you had plenty of terrorist attacks motivated by Communism (among a lot of other ideologies) in Eastern Europe. The reason for that is the Russian Empire's inability to fulfill the duties a contemporary government should have been able to fulfill. Thirty years ago the UK had a terrorism problem in Ireland, because of disenfranchised people who got desperate enough that violence became an attractive way to force change (and it worked).
Again, terrorism represents a failure in government. Blaming Islam for terrorism is short-sighted and shows a lot of ignorance about both history and the nature of terrorism.
You are looking for a simple explanation behind what is a complex issue. But there is no one cause of terrorism. Poverty is a factor, but so is Islam and how people interpret it. Many muslims see the decadent west as the enemy and will not integrate even if you shower them with (undeserved) wealth, IMHO.
-
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
I don't get my news from that source. It is, however, the only source I've ever seen make the comment seriously.
I know the Daily Mail story you're linking has been repeatedly debunked and denied, as it was the source for the aforementioned fever dream ranting. (And the current PM demanded and got an apology for the story being repeated in the 2012 elections, which says all that need be said about its validity. "Never apologize unless you have to" is a credo of running for office. ) The E has contradicted another.
The one about France isn't even from a French source, and admits it's saying something the French government both national and local will deny. That's...not too believable, to put it mildly.
not following that, wtf is "the greyzone"
Their method of refering to people not on any side. The whole argument you're not following is "get off the fence, the west wants to destroy you for being Muslim".
The fact people are on the fence in the first place is because they don't believe that.
Putting more restrictions on them because of their religion makes that belief harder to sustain.
This is simple stuff.
-
Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.
Some of you are acting as if the only options is either to shower the muslims with love or to gas them in concentration camps. But thats not true at all. Europe should severely tighten immigration rules and increase deportations of those who dont belong here, and at the same time Europe should treat muslims who are legitimately legally here in a respectful manner, just like other peaceful citizens. This common sense approach is severely lacking if we are just going to bicker about who loves or hates them muslims more.
-
But there are shias, christians, kurds and moderate muslims around the area. If there werent, there would be peace under ISIS over there. Local ethnic diversity is one of the main reasons behind the ISIS war. Especially sunni-shia conflict. If all of these ethnicities lived in their own little homogenous areas with good borders between them, there would be peace.
Right, because inter-state wars never happen, no sir.
There was (relative) peace over there 15 years ago. There was peace because there were strong governments. Oppressive? Certainly. Effective? Definitely. That's what kept radical Islam down. Not putting everyone in their own little nation-state. Governments capable of keeping order and actually providing their citizens with a modicum of security. Near-constant chaos is what allowed radical Islam to take root, not some cultural predisposition to blowing themselves up.
Terrorism already gets traction in the West, so your reasoning is obviously false. Western Europe experiences regular attacks and persistent ethnic violence commited by muslims. Despite being probably the wealthiest region in the world. Obviously, it takes more to ensure peace than material wealth. Fighting poverty is important but it will not be enough to secularize muslims. Because there is also an ideological war behind this violence, one that goes beyond simple materialism.
Where do you think those radical Muslims are coming from? The leaders of terrorist organizations may be wealthy and well-educated (bin Laden certainly was), but they're not the ones who go shoot up a club or blow themselves up. The people actually carrying out these acts are the ones who got into that because they had no other prospects. They're the people to whom radical Islam appeals. Yeah, you'll get a few of those in Western countries too, but an army like IS? Not a ****ing chance.
You are looking for a simple explanation behind what is a complex issue. But there is no one cause of terrorism. Poverty is a factor, but so is Islam and how people interpret it. Many muslims see the decadent west as the enemy and will not integrate even if you shower them with (undeserved) wealth, IMHO.
It's not about Islam at all. Radical Islam is a means by which charismatic people amass more power. It's used here because it's what'll best appeal to Arab Muslims. If this was happening somewhere else, say, Russia in the late 1910s, another ideology would be used to inspire desperate people to take up arms. Like, say, Communism.
You're focusing on radical Islam as though it's the cause of all this. It is not. If everyone in the Middle-East became an atheist tomorrow, the peace would last just long enough for someone else to find another ideology that'll appeal to all these desperate people with nothing to lose. I know this because it happened to nearly every single failed state in history, Muslim or not. In Russia, in East Asia, in Africa, in South America. Are you going to start telling me the Russian Civil War and the Troubles were caused by radical Islam?
Your entire argument is disproven by history.
-
Russian civil war was caused by Communist ideals, the situation would be very different if it wasnt for Communist ideology. The Troubles were also exacerbated by religious differences, they would never have grown to such a large degree if it wasnt two different religious groups at play.
Strong ideological differences are the cause of most modern conflicts. Not poverty or desperation. Wars of conquest and pillaging are mostly a thing of the past. Wars of ideas are the future. And you will not win these wars if you ignore the main motivation of your enemy. That is, their religion.
The people actually carrying out these acts are the ones who got into that because they had no other prospects. They're the people to whom radical Islam appeals. Yeah, you'll get a few of those in Western countries too, but an army like IS? Not a ****ing chance.
While poorer people are often more likely to take up arms, when it comes religious extremism itself, it can easily appear in any social class. And wealth will not solve it. Saudi Arabia is very wealthy and yet it is still a theocracy full of extremists. If you expect that muslims will integrate well as long as they are not poor, you will be disappointed, IMHO.
If everyone in the Middle-East became an atheist tomorrow, the peace would last just long enough for someone else to find another ideology that'll appeal to all these desperate people with nothing to lose.
I dont agree, if everyone in middle east became an atheist, conflicts would not disappear completely but they would decrease by 90%. Because almost all the conflicts in the region are ultimately due to religious differences. Erase those differences, and you will be left with no enemy to fight.
-
Russian civil war was caused by Communist ideals, the situation would be very different if it wasnt for Communist ideology.
Evidently not, because the IS situation is incredibly similar when you don't let yourself get carried away by 'lol muslims'. I've been over this.
The Troubles were also exacerbated by religious differences, they would never have grown to such a large degree if it wasnt two different religious groups at play.
Those religious differences still exist. And yet the Troubles are over and done with. Wow, it's almost as though people can coexist despite religious differences if neither of them is oppressing the other!
Nah, that can't be it. Clearly what the UK should have done is deport all the North Irish Catholics to the Republic of Ireland. That would definitely have led to a better, more permanent peace.
Strong ideological differences are the cause of most modern conflicts. Not poverty or desperation. Wars of conquest and pillaging are mostly a thing of the past. Wars of ideas are the future. And you will not win these wars if you ignore the main motivation of your enemy. That is, their religion.
You're really not hearing me. People won't fight in the name of poverty and desperation, but that's what will make people receptive to the idea that the West or the bourgeoisie or whatever is the cause of all their problems and inspire them to fight it. There's a reason IS popped up in Iraq and Syria now and not in 2002. In 2002, Iraq and Syria were stable countries with effective governments. Now they aren't. The demographics have not changed.
While poorer people are often more likely to take up arms, when it comes religious extremism itself, it can easily appear in any social class. And wealth will not solve it. Saudi Arabia is very wealthy and yet it is still a theocracy full of extremists. If you expect that muslims will integrate well as long as they are not poor, you will be disappointed, IMHO.
Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy full of extremists. It's not even a theocracy. It's an absolute monarchy. What the hell are you on about?
It's also really not full of extremists. It's got no significant issues with domestic terrorism, isn't a known sponsor of terrorism, and is one of the USA's main allies in the Middle-East.
-
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Oh for ****'s sake! You're quoting The Daily Mail AGAIN?! And then you're following it up with the 750 no-go zones nonsense even though a quick look on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp) would have shown what bollocks it is? Even Fox News apologised for that bull****.
-
Those religious differences still exist. And yet the Troubles are over and done with. Wow, it's almost as though people can coexist despite religious differences if neither of them is oppressing the other!
Nah, that can't be it. Clearly what the UK should have done is deport all the North Irish Catholics to the Republic of Ireland. That would definitely have led to a better, more permanent peace.
Maybe it would. But in the end, you cannot compare different situations in history as if they are the same thing, it is not that simple. ISIS is a lot more extreme in their religious interpretations than people during the troubles were, and muslims are a lot more hardcore believers than christians are, not being through any reformations. Therefore religious ideas play much larger role in this conflict. It is why muslim attacks spill all over the globe, instead of being contained in a little local area.
You're really not hearing me. People won't fight in the name of poverty and desperation, but that's what will make people receptive to the idea that the West or the bourgeoisie or whatever are the cause of all their problems and inspire them to fight it. There's a reason IS popped up in Iraq and Syria now and not in 2002.
What was sooner, the chicken or the egg? I acknowledged that poverty is a factor, but I will not go as far as to say it is the only one. That is simplistic thinking.
Saudi Arabia isn't a theocracy full of extremists. It's not even a theocracy. It's an absolute monarchy. What the hell are you on about?
It's also really not full of extremists. It's got no significant issues with domestic terrorism, isn't a known sponsor of terrorism, and is one of the USA's main allies in the Middle-East.
Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.
-
Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.
These sentences do not follow from each other. One admits something the other denies.
You're arguing two contradictory ideas; that this person is, and is not, already a radical.
ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are the people the Syrian refugees are fleeing for the most part. That goats exist among the sheep is probably inevitable; that they might get through is the price we pay for showing that we're better people than the ones they were running away from. (Indeed, this entire attack could be a direct response to the awful optics from the ISIS point of view of both losing ground in Iraq and Syria, and the fact that Europe is taking in the refugees, thus undermining the anti-Muslim narrative.)
You're trying to apply a solution that decreases the effective use of soft power to solve the underlying problems of the Middle East, and offering no alternative besides "grin and bear it, this won't prolong our danger at all".
(Also Jesus Christ you know nothing about internal tensions in Saudi Arabia at all. There is, for starters, a huge underclass of non-Saudis, mostly of Pakistani origin, brought in to be laborers.)
-
Someone who radicalizes because of lets say, strict immigration restrictions, is not a greyzone or a fence sitter. He is already an extremist and a ticking time bomb.
These sentences do not follow from each other. One admits something the other denies.
You're arguing two contradictory ideas; that this person is, and is not, already a radical.
ISIS/ISIL/Daesh are the people the Syrian refugees are fleeing for the most part. That goats exist among the sheep is probably inevitable; that they might get through is the price we pay for showing that we're better people than the ones they were running away from. (Indeed, this entire attack could be a direct response to the awful optics from the ISIS point of view of both losing ground in Iraq and Syria, and the fact that Europe is taking in the refugees, thus undermining the anti-Muslim narrative.)
Muslims do not really care about the fact that we are letting in migrants. No European muslim is going to think "omg, Europe increased their border controls and does not let migrants inside anymore, I better become an extremist". That is not how human mind works at all. Either they were going to become an extremist, or they were not. Migration policy has nothing to do with it.
So your unconditional acceptable of every muslim who happens to wander into Europe is doing absolutely nothing to appease muslims. But it is creating big muslim populations inside Europe from which the radicals will recruit members later. You may as well get used to several terrorist attacks every year, because thats what this policy of open borders leads to. Exporting religious extremism from middle east into Europe.
-
muslims are a lot more hardcore believers than christians are
citation ****ing needed.
'Muslim attacks' are all over the globe because muslims aren't a homogeneous group and different groups have different enemies. Chechen rebels are not Taliban are not IS are not Hamas are not Hezbollah. And also because Christians aren't oppressed and therefore have no reason to turn to terrorism in large numbers. They just get to wage war lawfully instead.
You're making it increasingly obvious that you don't actually know anything about either muslims or terrorists except that they say 'allahu akbar'.
Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.
Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. This isn't opinion, it's objective fact. Arguing against this is arguing against reality.
Seriously, are you trying to demonstrate how long a person can argue about **** he obviously knows nothing about?
Muslims do not really care about the fact that we are letting in migrants. No European muslim is going to think "omg, Europe increased their border controls and does not let migrants inside anymore, I better become an extremist".
Maybe not if he's already in (though some would), but a refugee forced to return to his war-torn homeland could definitely do this. And I'm pretty confident in saying this'll result in more extremists than would have entered had you just let people in.
-
Saudi Arabia indeed is a theocracy full of extremists. Their laws are to a large part based on extremist islam, so they are theocracy, no matter that they also have a king. It has no issues with domestic terrorism only because it is so culturally homogenous, but it is still full of religious extremists, especially the average population is very conservative, almost like ISIS members. Estremist is not the same as terrorist. It doesnt matter that it is USA ally, USA would ally with the devil if it was strategically advantageous.
Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. This isn't opinion, it's objective fact. Arguing against this is arguing against reality.
Seriously, are you trying to demonstrate how long a person can argue about **** he obviously knows nothing about?
maslo, Saudi Arabia is as much a Theocracy as the european monarchies were in the middle ages and renaissance periods, that is to say the leaders live by religious standards and that viewpoint informs them of how law should be worded and the standards that law should adhere to but the act of government is is conducted independently of direct control of national religious leaders
-
Of course muslims are much more religious than christians. They did not go through hundreds of years of secularization and reformation. You are telling me that I dont know anything about muslims yet you think they are just christians with turbans. Oh, the irony!
And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore. It could only affect middle east and north africa, not Europe. So if some muslim gets mad that he wasnt allowed to settle in Europe and then blows himself up somewhere in Iraq or Syria, good riddance I say. With such mentality, he would sooner or later cause conflicts in Europe anyway.
There is just no possible reason strict immigration policy could ever help ISIS. It is a truly absurd line of reasoning, the opposite of what common sense says. Obviously ISIS wants muslim population in Europe to grow. Or they will never be able to extend their caliphate to European soil.
-
If Saudi Arabia is a theocracy because Islam is the state religion, that means the UK is a theocracy because guess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England) what. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual)
Of course muslims are much more religious than christians. They did not go through hundreds of years of secularization and reformation. You are telling me that I dont know anything about muslims yet you think they are just christians with turbans. Oh, the irony!
Again, citation ****ing needed. Despite what you may believe, this is not self evident for anyone who's actually met a muslim before (which I'm very, very sure you have not).
Also it's very funny that you think the reformation has anything to do with making Christians less extreme. You know all those ll those Christian fundamentalists in the US? Yeah, most of them are Protestant. You know, the denomination that originated with the Reformation? I guess we can add 'Christianity' to the list of things you obviously know very little about.
And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore. It could only affect middle east and north africa, not Europe. So if some muslim gets mad that he wasnt allowed to settle in Europe and then blows himself up somewhere in Iraq or Syria, good riddance I say. With such mentality, he would sooner or later cause conflicts in Europe anyway.
Unless your plan is to put every passport from a Middle-Eastern country on a no-fly list (impossible), I guarantee terrorism in the Middle-East could become the West's problem extremely quickly. Or do you not remember 9/11?
-
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.[81] However, according to the Basic Law of Saudi Arabia adopted by royal decree in 1992, the king must comply with Sharia (Islamic law) and the Quran, while the Quran and the Sunnah (the traditions of Muhammad) are declared to be the country's constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics
If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol
-
And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore.
New York called, they are wondering where their landmarks have gone.
-
If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol
Holy **** dude, you quote an article claiming that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy to state that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy?
What the actual **** is wrong with you?
-
And as I said, muslims who are kicked out of Europe are not our problem anymore.
New York called, they are wondering where their landmarks have gone.
I dont give a damn about one-in-a-decade freak attacks. I do give a damn about attacks occurring every year, and also increase in ethnic violence. And that would not be happening in Europe if not for western European open borders policies over last 2 decades..
-
If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol
Holy **** dude, you quote an article claiming that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy to state that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy?
What the actual **** is wrong with you?
It is almost as if it can be both things at once! A truly radical concept, I know! Imagine that.. World is not black and white! It doesnt fit neatly into your little neat categories. LOL
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
-
It is almost as if it can be both things at once! A truly radical concept, I know! Imagine that.. World is not black and white! It doesnt fit neatly into your little neat categories. LOL
Unless the thing is question is Muslims, of course. In that case, they're all barbarians who should all be treated as terrorists.
Also, you must really hate that goddamn filthy British theocracy. I bet they're all covert Muslims.
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
None of those count because only Muslims can be extremists. Duh.
-
Of course muslims are much more religious than christians. They did not go through hundreds of years of secularization and reformation. You are telling me that I dont know anything about muslims yet you think they are just christians with turbans. Oh, the irony!
Again, citation ****ing needed.
http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf
Here you have a study directly comparing muslims and christians in Germany. Muslims are consistently far more extreme when it comes to all issues that were looked on.
-
http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf
Here you have a study directly comparing muslims and christians in Germany. Muslims are consistently far more extreme when it comes to all issues that were looked on.
Oh how I wish this study could be done in the USA. You haven't met fundamentalist Christians until you've met American ones. It's hilarious.
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
There are already some terrorists in Europe, therefore its irrational to not want the amount of terrorists in Europe to increase even further. Is this the point you are making?
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
There are already some terrorists in Europe, therefore its irrational to not want the amount of terrorists in Europe to increase even further. Is this the point you are making?
You still haven't proven that allowing refugees into European countries would increase terrorism.
-
http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u6/koopmans_englisch_ed.pdf
Here you have a study directly comparing muslims and christians in Germany. Muslims are consistently far more extreme when it comes to all issues that were looked on.
Oh how I wish this study could be done in the USA. You haven't met fundamentalist Christians until you've met American ones. It's hilarious.
Yup, American south fundamentalist christians can be pretty scary sometimes, I grant you that. Its a good thing they dont mass immigrate into Europe but stay in their little corner, I would be pretty concerned too if that was happening. Religious extremism in general is a bad thing, but dont act like all religions are currently the same when it comes to proportion/virulence of extremism/threat posed to Europe.
-
Yup, American south fundamentalist christians can be pretty scary sometimes, I grant you that. Its a good thing they dont mass immigrate into Europe but stay in their little corner, I would be pretty concerned too if that was happening. Religious extremism in general is a bad thing, but dont act like all religions are currently the same when it comes to proportion/virulence of extremism.
Well they kinda are. US Christians kinda prove that religious extremism is an environmental factor, not something religion-specific.
Here, have a fun article about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/16/no-difference-in-religious-fundamentalism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
There are already some terrorists in Europe, therefore its irrational to not want the amount of terrorists in Europe to increase even further. Is this the point you are making?
The point The_E is making is that according to you Islam is the only source of terrorism in the world, when the reality is as always that Idealist extremism, be it religious, sovereign, economic, whatever exists everywhere and Europe is not going to fix anything by taking discriminatory measures against the current media hot topic group which is the same old act with a different song
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
mate i don't care if you're still touchy about dresden, the RAF are a fine upstanding organisation who couldn't be further from a terrorist group
-
Basically, 666maslo666's position is that if we take these refugees and send them back to IS, they won't be as inclined to work for IS than if we let them in. Instead they'll happily stay in the Middle-East (because that worked out very well in the past). It makes perfect sense when you refuse to think about it.
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
mate i don't care if you're still touchy about dresden, the RAF are a fine upstanding organisation who couldn't be further from a terrorist group
Best post in the thread.
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
There are already some terrorists in Europe, therefore its irrational to not want the amount of terrorists in Europe to increase even further. Is this the point you are making?
You still haven't proven that allowing refugees into European countries would increase terrorism.
I guess all the intelligence services warnings about extremists being hidden among the refugees never happened. The fact that one of the attackers was apparently a registered refugee in Greece does not matter. There is also the mathematical fact that mixing a population with the higher incidence of extremism into a population with lower incidence of extremism will inevitably result in increase of the incidence in the latter population (see my earlier analogy with mixing chemicals of two different concentrations). What exactly would count as a proof to you?
-
If this is not a theocracy, then I dont know what is, lol
Holy **** dude, you quote an article claiming that Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy to state that Saudi Arabia is a theocracy?
What the actual **** is wrong with you?
It is almost as if it can be both things at once! A truly radical concept, I know! Imagine that.. World is not black and white! It doesnt fit neatly into your little neat categories. LOL
Except you have immeaditely taking up on to call Saudi Arabia a theocracy, a little neat catagory that you specifically use to paint something entirely black - even though, by any definition, it's not. Untill the king of Saudi Arabia wields as much theological power as, say, the Pope, it will never be a theocracy. This is not a case of radical concepts, this is simply you not understanding what words you use.
Straight Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
mate i don't care if you're still touchy about dresden, the RAF are a fine upstanding organisation who couldn't be further from a terrorist group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction
-
I guess all the intelligence services warnings about extremists being hidden among the refugees never happened. The fact that one of the attackers was apparently a registered refugee in Greece does not matter. There is also the mathematical fact that mixing a population with the higher incidence of extremism into a population with lower incidence of extremism will inevitably result in increase of the incidence in the latter population (see my earlier analogy with mixing chemicals of two different concentrations). What exactly would count as a proof to you?
Yeah but like we've been saying, sending them back to Syria and Iraq isn't going to make the terrorists stop being terrorists, and will increase the amount of people who do become terrorists because you've removed their last option (because no one who has better options is going to walk to Europe).
Sure, the problem's not in your borders, but why the hell would you think IS is going to stop caring about the West just because we sent them more recruits?
And there's no proof you can provide because your position makes no sense and plays straight into IS hands.
-
maslo, you know the best way to deal with terrorists? not to be afraid of them, let the security services get on with their jobs and for the rest of us to get on with our lives, the clue is in the name Terrorists, if Ireland taught us in the UK anything it's that ultimately you won't stop all the plots, some will get though and when they do, just pick up the pieces, remember the dead and move the **** on because terror cannot thrive if the people don't fear and if the people aren't afraid then they wont demand the changes the terrorists want just to make them go away.
-
Right, because home-grown terrorism is not a thing in Europe and has never been. Never mind the IRA or the RAF or basque separatists or neonazis. They don't matter.
mate i don't care if you're still touchy about dresden, the RAF are a fine upstanding organisation who couldn't be further from a terrorist group
Hahahahahahahahaha
I guess all the intelligence services warnings about extremists being hidden among the refugees never happened. The fact that one of the attackers was apparently a registered refugee in Greece does not matter. There is also the mathematical fact that mixing a population with the higher incidence of extremism into a population with lower incidence of extremism will inevitably result in increase of the incidence in the latter population (see my earlier analogy with mixing chemicals of two different concentrations). What exactly would count as a proof to you?
This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?
Your arguments rely on a kind of lay determinism, a naive and deceptive 'basic logic' which isn't born out in the stochasticism of the real world. ****'s more complicated than this.
The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.
Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.
Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.
maslo, you know the best way to deal with terrorists? not to be afraid of them, let the security services get on with their jobs and for the rest of us to get on with our lives, the clue is in the name Terrorists, if Ireland taught us in the UK anything it's that ultimately you won't stop all the plots, some will get though and when they do, just pick up the pieces, remember the dead and move the **** on because terror cannot thrive if the people don't fear and if the people aren't afraid then they wont demand the changes the terrorists want just to make them go away.
Exactly. Terrorist attacks are designed to produce political change — changes caused by reflexive and short-sighted backlash.
-
Muslims do not really care about the fact that we are letting in migrants. No European muslim is going to think "omg, Europe increased their border controls and does not let migrants inside anymore, I better become an extremist". That is not how human mind works at all. Either they were going to become an extremist, or they were not. Migration policy has nothing to do with it.
That's incredibly short-sighted. What causes radicalisation is pointing out injustices which can be blown up till they seem massive enough that someone is willing to blow themselves up to right them. That's a really, really big part of it. You really don't think that a massively racist deportation of anyone who seems Muslim followed by an immigration policy which goes against those countries in particular isn't going to be spun that way?
Or are you planning to deport all the people who could possibly be radicalised? i.e every single Muslim in Europe.
-
Yup, American south fundamentalist christians can be pretty scary sometimes, I grant you that. Its a good thing they dont mass immigrate into Europe but stay in their little corner, I would be pretty concerned too if that was happening. Religious extremism in general is a bad thing, but dont act like all religions are currently the same when it comes to proportion/virulence of extremism.
Well they kinda are. US Christians kinda prove that religious extremism is an environmental factor, not something religion-specific.
Here, have a fun article about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/16/no-difference-in-religious-fundamentalism-between-american-muslims-and-christians/
American christians are more conservative than European ones, despite America being more wealthy and with comparable or higher standard of living than Europe. Why is that? Isnt it enough to shower people with wealth to get rid of religious extremism? Could culture or ideology be a factor too?
The article correctly points out that muslim immigrants in the US are different (of higher quality) than muslim immigrants arriving to Europe, so those two populations are not exactly comparable. Of course more educated and wealthy immigrants are less likely to be extremist, but if anything, this proves my point that we need a better immigration policy so that low quality immigrants are filtered out in Europe too, just like they are in the US - thats how we get less extremism. We dont have a magic wand to solve poverty once we accept lots of poor immigrants, we cant even solve it among our own people, and its not for a lack of trying.
-
High quality, organic, artisanal, free-range immigrants
-
Daesh will not be truly solved anytime soon, you may as well give up on that. It will just get replaced by a successor anyway. It took hundreds of years for christianity to get rid of its extremism, and there is no indication the process will go any quicker for muslims. I am not ruling it out, but dont hold your breath.
But, I have never claimed Daesh will in any way be solved by my ideas, tough. What I am claiming is that it will make Europe much more secure. Wars in middle east will go on as they always do, but they would not spill into Europe if not for mass immigration. And if they do, it will be an isolated attack, not regular occurrences of violence.
Battuta, you claim that it is complicated, but it really is not complicated at all in this instance. The more muslims you have in your country, the more likely it is there will be regular terrorist attacks and ethnic violence against non-muslims. Basic logic is enough to infer this.
These attacks would not be happening if not for mass immigration which increased French muslim population from 1% to 10% in like two decades. I am sure of that.
And it will only be getting worse unless this achiless heel of western Europe is fixed.
Exclusionary acts built Daesh, and they should also be used to contain it.
Sending people away spatially will not stop all attacks, but it will greatly decrease their frequency.
-
This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?
What misread polls?
And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).
The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.
Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.
I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).
Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.
Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.
Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.
-
You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?
-
Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.
-
Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.
And we're right back to my point about injustice which you completely ignored before. Exactly what has Eastern Europe been doing that would make them a bigger target than Western Europe or America?
-
Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..
-
Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.
And we're right back to my point about injustice which you completely ignored before. Exactly what has Eastern Europe been doing that would make them a bigger target than Western Europe or America?
We have been active in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of NATO. We are certainly a target. But because we have no muslims, it is much harder for islamism to take root in our nations. Spatial separation defense is the best defense. So there will be no attacks in eastern Europe, or only very little, no matter how hard we bomb them muslims..
-
How so? How do we harm them? Are we dropping bombs on their heads right now? Do we want to destroy their culture? The only reason they would want to attack us would be our involvement in invasion of Iraq in 2003. But for example involvement of Polish troops was marginal compared to destruction caused by the US, UK and other West Europe's military. We did not enough harm to make us a primary target. The threat of course exists. It always does. but IT IS significantly lower. As well, we don't have large Muslim minorities "to be oppressed" so their argument about corrupting the Muslims and destroying their faith does not exist in my country.
The only terrorist threat that was contained in Poland was a secret held by the authorities for years. A couple months ago our intelligence reviled that terrorists were planning the attack in 2003 or 2004 (can't remember which year exactly). They planned to attack 3 big churches in different cities during the Christmas Eve masses. Since then no threat has been diagnosed.
-
Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.
That was not a factor maslo mentioned in his theories. According to his statements, Germany should see more religiously motivated violence from the muslim community than most other EU countries, and yet all we've had over the past decade were 2 incidents with 5 total wounded or dead (including the perpetrators).
Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..
Yeah, but the violence will likely NOT come from the muslims. It'll be right-wing idiots scared of immigrants that'll make problems.
-
Where most of German Muslim minority have Turkish origins from what I know. And I've never heard about Turks planting bombs. Each one I've met and talked to are decent hard-working people.
That was not a factor maslo mentioned in his theories. According to his statements, Germany should see more religiously motivated violence from the muslim community than most other EU countries, and yet all we've had over the past decade were 2 incidents with 5 total wounded or dead (including the perpetrators).
Yeah, Germany has mostly Turks, and Turks are the most secular and westernized muslim nation in the world, so they are less problematic. That is until this year, when Germany foolishly admitted million random non-Turk muslims and counting. I sadly dont expect peace in Germany to last long after this mistake..
Yeah, but the violence will likely NOT come from the muslims. It'll be right-wing idiots scared of immigrants that'll make problems.
Time will tell. So far yes, violent acts were coming mostly from arsonists who were attacking camps where refugees/immigrants are living. But right now you can't be sure that there are no moles among newly arrived people. And if the attack too place in France, same thing can happen in Germany. Because the whole process of immigration is chaotic.
BTW. look how easy it is to get a fake Syrian passport which will allow you to travel easily.
https://www.facebook.com/syrianmilitary/photos/a.349106328504089.83004.349059891842066/918490288232354/?type=3&theater
-
This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?
What misread polls?
And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).
The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.
Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.
I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).
Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.
Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.
Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.
Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.
-
This is not remotely a 'mathematical fact', much like your misread polls from a few months ago. Did you mean that the average will increase in the combined population?
What misread polls?
And yes, I mean in the combined population (after immigration).
The last twenty years have made it very clear that first-order responses don't prevent violence, whether that violence is religious, political, or even civil (like school shootings). Structural changes do. No amount of deportation, targeted killing, and military action will solve Daesh in the long run. What will stop Daesh is the collapse of support for their movement caused by their own brutality towards Muslims, their genocidal and apocalyptic philosophy, their wingnut theology, and the West's more enticing economic and ideological options.
Exclusionary acts built Daesh: they came out of the Iraqi civil war, which came out of the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army. In each case the correct solution would've been to bring them closer and give them a stake in civil process. This isn't easy, and it's not going to stop every attack or get them to set down arms. But it will destroy the power base which they depend on.
I dont aim to "solve Daesh" by restricting immigration, just keeping my country safe (from islamic extremism in general, not just Daesh - they are just a latest incarnation of the threat, and probably not the last).
Solving Daesh would most likely be accomplished by Russia bombing them into oblivion and reinstating Assad, who will keep islamists at bay through his brutal rule - not the best solution, but the only one feasible now (there is no saint in that whole area, just bad vs. worse). I dont think Daesh has a lot of time left.
Sending people away spatially will not stop them from launching terrorist attacks on your homeland.
Funny how exactly that has worked for us very well so far. Multiple islamist attacks in western Europe with significant muslim minority, not a single one in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps you are right and our time will come, but I bet the frequency will be many many times lower than it already is in western Europe. Spatial separation is actually a very effective defense.
Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.
Simple question. Did the Eastern Europe countries have colonies in Africa/middle East? Did we exploit their people and resources for our own gain? Are we responsible for that mess? NO. What reasons they can have to hate us for? To turn against us? And finally. Even if we take these people. How can we guarantee them a decent conditions of living while we have tones of our internal problems? When a lot of young people can't find a job? Who will pay for these people when we can't afford a proper conditions of living for our own people? If they come here and see that we don't give them wealth and benefits or it will be much lower then in Western EU they will either leave or if they can't they will be frustrated. As many of you pointed before, frustration and poverty will lead to aggression. it is not that we don't want to help. We can not afford that help on terms that the Western countries can.
-
According to Incrastic doctrines, people from the Middle-East are naturally more prone to extremism. It's the result of unhygienic cultural practices and breeding.
-
Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.
Note, he did not say that Russians bombing ISIS into oblivion and reinstating Assad is the best solution. He said that it's how it'll be done and he is right, because Putin wants "his" dictator out there and doesn't care much for France being bombed. Assad would likely put an end to Daesh, this is not a solution to the underlying problem, but nobody cares. Putin doesn't have any interest in taking terrorist pressure off Europe, Assad just wants power (like dictators usually do) and there is nobody else who has a perspective to improve things. They'll sweep the problem under the rug, like you predict, which will be an improvement from what is going on right now, but there will be resurgence after some time unless more permanent solution is effected.
I'd start by establishing a government in Syria that actually cares about Syrians. A secular regime that would respond strongly and decisively to extremism, but keep the population genuinely happy (as much as it's possible in the current situation). But that's a pipe dream, good look getting someone smart enough to clean this mess up to actually do it (and then those people to accept their new ruler, especially a secular one).
According to Incrastic doctrines, people from the Middle-East are naturally more prone to extremism. It's the result of unhygienic cultural practices and breeding.
Your point? Neither actual racism nor accusations of racism are needed here. Other people have pointed out why extremism is prevalent (it's a common reaction to things going very bad), why those particular Muslim groups are prone to it (they're very religious, it's been even pointed out other very religious groups can be just as extremist if pressed) and why we don't want them in Europe. It's easy to slip into bigotry when there are genuine reasons not to like a large group of particular ethnic/religious group, but let's not do that.
-
Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.
Ultimately, Daesh was created because of naive multiculturalism - this toxic idea that you can cram several different ethnicities into this artificial entity called "Iraq" and they will magically live together in peace (even without a strong dictator enforcing order by the necessary means). What a mess we got instead. This same scenario repeated itself countless times in history and will probably again repeat in the future in some other unfortunate place..
-
You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?
yeah, they just like using it as a place to organize attacks on other places, and I see what you did there with your timeframe.
-
Your tactics here are a beautiful recipe for the creation of Daesh - a gorgeous recapitulation of every twentieth century misstep.
Ultimately, Daesh was created because of naive multiculturalism - this toxic idea that you can cram several different ethnicities into this artificial entity called "Iraq" and they will magically live together in peace (even without a strong dictator enforcing order by the necessary means). What a mess we got instead. This same scenario repeated itself countless times in history and will probably again repeat in the future in some other unfortunate place..
Hahaha, this is pure fantasy. Daesh was created by a collision of economic, theological, and security factors. To call Iraq a product of 'naive multiculturalism' is the real naivete — postcolonial Iraq was an instrument of realpolitik, built on and sustained by the security needs of larger actors.
It was the product of exactly the strategy you espouse: put security now over long-term solutions.
You need to bone up on your history if you're going to engage in this subject. Ditch 'ethnicities' and learn about the actual factions within Iraq, which are a complicated mix of theological and ethnic divides — the Sunni and Shia both being Arab. Read up on the founding of Daesh in American detention camps, the split from al-Qaeda, and their genocidal agenda against members of their own Arab majority.
You want to flinch. To justify that flinch, you want everything to be explained by your fears: immigrants and multiculturalism. But the world doesn't care. It won't obey your story.
-
In fact, Iraq is not an exception at all, plenty of destructive civil wars in post-colonial countries were caused by drawing lines on a map while ignoring real lines on the ground. It is a common theme. Inevitably, some group will hold more power than in should in the newly created artificial entity, some groups will percieve this as being oppressed (and often rightly so), and the whole thing deteriorated from there in a cycle of violence. With Daesh merely being the "freedom fighters" of a particularly violent faction.
History may not exactly repeat itself, but it rhymes indeed..
-
I really don't understand why 666maslo666 insists on talking about history when he's made it abundantly clear that he has little to no education on the subject.
Your point? Neither actual racism nor accusations of racism are needed here. Other people have pointed out why extremism is prevalent (it's a common reaction to things going very bad), why those particular Muslim groups are prone to it (they're very religious, it's been even pointed out other very religious groups can be just as extremist if pressed) and why we don't want them in Europe. It's easy to slip into bigotry when there are genuine reasons not to like a large group of particular ethnic/religious group, but let's not do that.
One would think my previous posts in this thread and use of terminology from a fantasy novel would clue you in to the fact that my post was a joke.
-
You know Germany is in central Europe too, has taken in a significant number of refugees, has a significant muslim minority, and has had no major terrorist actions by muslims in the past decade?
yeah, they just like using it as a place to organize attacks on other places, and I see what you did there with your timeframe.
Expand the timeframe then. 20 years. 30 years. 50 years. It doesn't matter. Germany has never had muslim terrorism above the "petty nuisance" level, all the really dangerous terrorists we had were entirely homegrown.
-
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.
Read between the lines. They are communities with a majority migrant population. Women are not taken seriously. Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.
This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".
I know the Daily Mail story you're linking has been repeatedly debunked and denied, as it was the source for the aforementioned fever dream ranting. (And the current PM demanded and got an apology for the story being repeated in the 2012 elections, which says all that need be said about its validity. "Never apologize unless you have to" is a credo of running for office. ) The E has contradicted another.
The one about France isn't even from a French source, and admits it's saying something the French government both national and local will deny. That's...not too believable, to put it mildly.
As the American Thinker article stated, "What government on planet Earth would willingly admit that it doesn't control its own territory?" Certainly, the enclaves may still be nominally subject to the French, British, and German governments, and it would be politically offensive to suggest otherwise. And true, there is technically no prohibition on police or non-Muslims entering the territory.
But these are societies who have no loyalty to their host governments and want to live according to their own culture and customs. And that's fine, but if they do that in Europe it will no longer be Europe.
There may not be Sharia cities in the UK yet, but there are groups which are actively trying to make that happen (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2278/britain-islamic-emirates-project).
Oh for ****'s sake! You're quoting The Daily Mail AGAIN?! And then you're following it up with the 750 no-go zones nonsense even though a quick look on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp) would have shown what bollocks it is? Even Fox News apologised for that bull****.
If you're going to lose your **** whenever someone cites a source, this thread isn't going to remain civil for very long.
-
The problem Goober IS the source, The Daily Mail and The Sun are sensationalist tabloids both with a proven history of putting scandal above minor details like fact checking
-
Read between the lines. They are communities with a majority migrant population. Women are not taken seriously. Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.
This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".
No. Zones where Police doesn't go, or where groups try to establish a segregated community are a problem for criminal justice which is present everywhere where "criminal justice" is a thing. It doesn't matter whether these communities are founded by immigrants or nazis or whatever (And again: Nazis are a much bigger problem in Germany). There have been attempts to create similar zones by muslims. They were rejected by the muslim community and severely discouraged by the authorities.
In other words, this isn't a new problem. It didn't start with immigrants or refugees, it won't end if we stop taking in new people.
Oh for ****'s sake! You're quoting The Daily Mail AGAIN?! And then you're following it up with the 750 no-go zones nonsense even though a quick look on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp) would have shown what bollocks it is? Even Fox News apologised for that bull****.
If you're going to lose your **** whenever someone cites a source, this thread isn't going to remain civil for very long.
Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?
-
Goobber: your post is pretty representative of why it's pretty hard to believe claims that these "no-go zones" exist. It's all "read between the lines" and "statements by the government are invalid because they'd never admit it even if it was true."
I'd also be careful citing Gatestone. For one, they're the only "reputable" place I've ever seen articles on this. Second, I've read articles from them in which they cited French sources that didn't actually say what they claimed the sources were saying. Or, like the German example The_E's talking about, they interpreted unsafe zones as automatically meaning Muslim-controlled when the source never mentioned Islam anywhere. I suspect they were hoping their readers didn't speak French and so couldn't verify.
I don't feel like delving through that website to find an example, so believe what you will. I think they have a political agenda.
Also, that there are groups actively trying to accomplish something doesn't mean anything. There are groups in the US actively trying to ban Islam from the country. It doesn't mean they'll ever succeed.
-
The problem Goober IS the source, The Daily Mail and The Sun are sensationalist tabloids both with a proven history of putting scandal above minor details like fact checking
A good scandal usually has a basis in truth. That's why I cited other sources as well. The Daily Mail and the Sun shouldn't be the final word on the subject.
Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?
Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves? Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.
-
I asked for this so I figured I needed to respond even if it is a few pages stale.
Fine. People who have comfortable lives and future prospects don't usually go and blow themselves up. Terrorism isn't caused by religion, it's caused by poverty and desperation. ISIS didn't come about because 'lol Muslims', it came about because there's been a near nonstop war in the region since 2003 (and since 1979 in Afghanistan, and then the whole Israel thing).
I've said this in other threads before, but the whole ISIS things has a lot of parallels with the Russian Revolution. ISIS and the Bolsheviks operate in very similar ways. They show up, make an example of some scapegoats (usually representatives of the ineffective government), take over government services, run them relatively competently, and violently dispose of any dissenters. Both used an ideology to gain traction with a thoroughly disenfranchised population with little hope for the future and blamed the problems on some Other. The biggest differences are the ideologies used (for Russia, it was Communism, and for the ME, it's Islam), and the fact that Lenin was a lot more competent a general than al-Baghdadi is.
Now, here's the thing: if you can offer all the refugees fleeing the war the chance to make themselves safe and comfortable lives in the West, then you're not likely to see many of them turn to terrorism. They'll have no cause to. What do you think will happen if you make them turn around and go back to the war-torn ****hole they came from, where they have no future? Why, they might become quite receptive to the notion that their problems are caused by the West. Maybe they'll want to do something about it.
Why do you think countries like Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism? I mean, if Muslims are a security issue in Western countries even in their small numbers, shouldn't these countries, which are almost entirely Muslim, be crawling with terrorists?
Terrorism represents a failure of government, not religion.
Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news. and the 5-7000 ISIS fighters that made the reverse migration would like to share some good news too.
You place a religious conservative family from Syria into a liberal secular European country and what do you think will happen when their daughters/sisters start coming home with local boys, dressing "like a slut" and listening to that devil music. This western temptation is corrupting or youth! They will see, "oh the west really is against god. it really is a plague of degeneracy on the world that needs to be wiped out" it happens with Christians in America, why wouldn't it happen with Muslims in Europe?
Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism are all also totalitarian theocracies that will eagerly crack your skull at the slightest sight of not fervently praising the national government
You cannot have terrorism without an ideology that pushes you to sacrifice your life for a greater good. You can have that if you have nothing or if you live in the lap of luxury. If you feel like you are better and have absolute truth and the rest of the world just needs to fall in line. Religion fills this role wonderfully, in fact that might be it's purpose, to give a uniformity of thought in a population and to make that population willing to serve the greater good. Why do you think there is always a war on Christmas?
and then there is the bigger question of maybe they are right to a degree, maybe islam and western liberalism are incompatible after all.
-
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.
Read between the lines. They are communities with a majority migrant population. Women are not taken seriously. Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.
This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
Why would you listen to, say, Sandwich, who doesn't live in Europe, but deny the E, who actually lives in the country you are talking about?
Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves? Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.
We are kinda obligated to be nice because you are an admin. Karajorma has the authority to set you straight when you do something really stupid.
-
We on this forum have historically run on the principal of freedom of speech, we don't take it as far as I would like but for the most part that has been the culture. if you don't have any hope of changing his mind and don't mind looking like an asshole by all means be as rude to him as you would anyone else, admin abuse of power has always been something that has never been tolerated.
-
Admins are given a degree of respect on here because, while there have been exceptions, they are usually level headed individuals whose words show a level of depth that thinking them over before replying is usually the prudent thing to do regardless of the scenario.
Mods.... have a more checkered history lol
-
I asked for this so I figured I needed to respond even if it is a few pages stale.
Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news. and the 5-7000 ISIS fighters that made the reverse migration would like to share some good news too.
You place a religious conservative family from Syria into a liberal secular European country and what do you think will happen when their daughters/sisters start coming home with local boys, dressing "like a slut" and listening to that devil music. This western temptation is corrupting or youth! They will see, "oh the west really is against god. it really is a plague of degeneracy on the world that needs to be wiped out" it happens with Christians in America, why wouldn't it happen with Muslims in Europe?
Saudia Arabia, Iran, the UAE, and Jordan don't have huge problems with domestic terrorism are all also totalitarian theocracies that will eagerly crack your skull at the slightest sight of not fervently praising the national government
You cannot have terrorism without an ideology that pushes you to sacrifice your life for a greater good. You can have that if you have nothing or if you live in the lap of luxury. If you feel like you are better and have absolute truth and the rest of the world just needs to fall in line. Religion fills this role wonderfully, in fact that might be it's purpose, to give a uniformity of thought in a population and to make that population willing to serve the greater good. Why do you think there is always a war on Christmas?
and then there is the bigger question of maybe they are right to a degree, maybe islam and western liberalism are incompatible after all.
I'm pretty sure I stated in one of the dozen posts I made in this thread that yes, you're going to get terrorists even in a comfortable, well-off population, but you're not going to get large scale movements like IS or Al-Qaeda. You'll notice that all the people who left European counties to join IS... left their countries. They didn't stay to fight at home, they went to Syria.
What you describe probably happens, but then again, I suspect that Muslims who really do think the West in the devil, or immoral, and that western values will corrupt their youth won't choose a western country to come to. They'll go to Turkey, or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. Do remember that far, far more Syrian refugees have gone to other Middle-Eastern countries than have gone to Europe.
Of the four countries listed, only Iran is a theocracy. The other three objectively are not. Jordan is actually a fairly liberal secular constitutional monarchy (relative to other states in the ME), and is probably one of the greatest success stories of the Middle-East.
You cannot have large-scale terrorism without circumstances that favor the creation of large paramilitary movements specifically focused towards committing criminal acts for political ends. Those circumstances almost always (as in I can't think of a case where they did not) involve perceived oppression, stemming from poverty, desperation, or disenfranchisement. Sure, you need an ideology, but that ideology will not gain widespread traction if circumstances don't favor it. Such circumstances did not exist in Iraq until 2003 (except for the Kurds). They exist now, which is why IS happened now and not in 2002. Religion absolutely fills this hole, but it is by no means the only thing that does. Communism did the job perfectly well in both Russia and China. If circumstances in a region favor the development of terrorist or rebel movements, a suitable ideology will be found. It happens every time.
And I think Islam is as compatible with western liberalism as Christianity is. It is no less mutable.
-
Well, I'll say this on the matter - people are idiots. From the Left trying to falsely paint the refugees as a one-solution fits all approach to radical right wingers and Nazis calling for concentration camps.
What the matter shows is that ISIS is not a mere bully, but an entity that will and can strike. Normally I don't advocate for direct force, but after the Paris attacks, my opinion is heavily leaning towards a form of real military action, not just airstrikes. Perhaps we do owe it to the Syrians to give them their country back.
As for my take on the migrants and refugees? Well, the answer is simple - the Left is foolish, downright lying bastards claiming that integration will go smoothly. In fact, I'm more cynical that the current European governments are pretending that the refugees as "an easy" problem when in reality it's a mess. The so-called Liberals in Europe better get a memo that things are not peachy, and all of their pathetic pandering to sound "politically acceptable" will just backfire as much as the clash going on with migrants and natives. The Left is in crisis, cowards, and not really ready to hear reality.
Are the migrants a problem? So are the governments trying to foolishly paint it white. I'm not surprised at the attempts of whitewashing to make things look easy, and they're not. And frankly, magically expecting the refugees to "integrate" is stupid. And really, I got no good answers but wait and see.
-
@Aesaar
Yes, the ones who left left and the ones who didn't staid, that's quite tautological.
There are Christian westerners who grew up in the west, are part of the culture, and who you would say have massive privilege in the culture who think the west is of the devil and corrupting the youth, people who none the less move into more "liberal" cities for their career, I'm see no reason to assume there are no Muslims who do the same.
OK, I'll give you Jordan, but you are actually calling the UAE and Saudi "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"-on-it's-****ing-flag Arabia non-theocracies? I suppose maybe technically they are Monarchies, but that is at best pedantic. At least you are not contesting my assertion that they are totalitarian, which is the reason I was asserting why they don't have a whole lot of internal terrorism, and honestly they do have a fair decent amount of that even with their focus on control of their population.
So, when you say "large-scale terrorism" you mean like the christian militia movement (some of them/debatable), or the KKK/Arian Nation, or the Weathermen in the US, or the to look outside the US how about the IRA or the ETA? it seems the only thing that stopped these things from becoming paramilitary is a strong existing central military power and it sure as hell didn't stop them from being highly effective terrorist groups so the only thing missing in the comparison to ISIS specifically is the ability to hold land, but I don't see why that's relevant to a discussion about terrorism in general.
"Religion absolutely fills this hole, but it is by no means the only thing that does. Communism did the job perfectly well in both Russia and China."
I absolutely unconditionally agree with this statement.
Though I often think of Communism as tantamount to a religion.
"And I think Islam is as compatible with western liberalism as Christianity is."
I don't disagree with you. but possibly not in the way you think. Christianity has been on a slow decline the last few hundred years and on a rather rapid collapse the last 50ish. If Islam was forced to play by the same rules Christianity has in recent history it would likely be in the same boat.
-
Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh and a whole bunch of other fat comfortable christian Americans who think that god has charged them a righteous crusade against the unholy heathens would like to tell you some good news.
McVeigh? McVeigh, who directed his terrorist attack at the US federal government as an explicitly political act? That 'Christain crusader', McVeigh? You're proving yourself wrong pretty wonderfully.
-
yeah, its debatable.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/International/french-jets-bomb-syria-police-launched-international-manhunt/story?id=35215091
-
Maybe you should stop quoting discredited sources?
Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves? Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.
Because neither of them caught on to exactly what you did. Having been asked for a reputable source you deliberately posted one you knew would be unacceptable to those people arguing against you. You've been on this forum long enough to know that the Daily Mail is probably one of the worst news sources on the planet and that it is especially unacceptable to anyone of a left-wing point of view. You know damn well that posting anything from the Daily Mail is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. You've been around long enough to know that simply posting a Daily Mail article is immediately followed by someone having to go to the trouble of finding a website that shows it has been discredited (in exactly the same way I had to).
So given all that, as far as I'm concerned, you posted a bad faith argument. You knew the exact effect posting a Daily Mail story would have, yet you made no attempt to find a better source. I could try to read between the lines about your motives for doing so but I'm simply going to leave it at publicly putting it on record that you now know that those of us on this board consider the Mail to be at about the same level of reputability as the Sunday Sport or National Enquirer.
-
I honestly don't remember which UK tabloids are acceptable to which tribes, I just remember some people find some of them unacceptable and I have to some times go back and find another source. I don't live in the UK so I'm not reminded about it every other day, I don't read it, I wouldn't recognize their logo. I imagine Goober is in a similar boat as me.
-
Actually, I was tempted to curse Goober out for the right-wing conspiracy blog long before I got to the Daily Mail being a so thoroughly discredited source a presidential candidate had to apologize for using that story.
The post that you saw was edited for tone a half-dozen times before I actually posted it. I had, and have, serious doubts about whether the effort to make the post's point-by-point analysis of the sources was at all worthwhile, much as I spent several minutes of debate in whether it actually deserved a civil reply. "Argument in bad faith" are gentler words than I would use to describe it. "Willful and bizarre desire to believe something you think horrible in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence" and "deliberate ignorance of anything past the point where the information that confirms your worldview is" are as close to politely rendering my opinion of what that was as I can come in the five and a half minutes I'm devoting to this post.
-
I honestly don't remember which UK tabloids are acceptable to which tribes, I just remember some people find some of them unacceptable and I have to sometimes go back and find another source. I don't live in the UK so I'm not reminded about it every other day, I don't read it, I wouldn't recognize their logo. I imagine Goober is in a similar boat as me.
while that is fair enough, The Daily Mail has the dubious honour of having it's editor in chief go from pretty damn popular to publicly ridiculed in a day over 1 decision to go with his boner rather than check sources which cost him his job soon after, that editor in chief was Piers Morgan. Not many years after that News of the World and the phone hacking broke so the Tabloids/Sensationalist press based in the UK has a *Very" low standing as far as the more intellectual Brit is concerned, and even before that.... it wasn't very high due to harassment, knee jerk reporting and more often than not extremely conservative views. Unfortunately most brits lap that **** up so they still have health circulation numbers.
-
Also just a general FYI that Russia is probably not in Syria to fight Daesh
-
They exist in France (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/yes_there_are_no_go_zones_in_france_.html), the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541635/Murders-rapes-going-unreported-no-zones-police-minority-communities-launch-justice-systems.html), Germany (http://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchtet-sich-sogar-die-polizei-id4926287.html), and other countries as well.
Just gonna comment on the Germany example you linked there: All that interview states is that there are zones where the Police does not feel safe going alone. There's nothing there about Sharia zones. They do not exist, not in the sense Maslo was referring to them.
Read between the lines. They are communities with a majority migrant population. Women are not taken seriously. Criminal justice is handled within the enclave without involving the police.
This is not full-blown explicit Sharia, but it certainly has all the marks of Sharia "in the closet".
Getting your news from Presidential campaign speeches isn't a very good way to stay informed about the world. Try reading European news sources, or talking to people -- like Sandwich -- who are actually from Europe.
Why would you listen to, say, Sandwich, who doesn't live in Europe, but deny the E, who actually lives in the country you are talking about?
I had been under the impression that Israel was technically considered part of Europe, but on looking it up it's actually considered part of West Asia. The funny thing about the Middle East is that it's on the crossroads of three continents. Mea culpa on that point.
I'm not at all denying The E's experiences. Telling someone that there could be more than meets the eye is completely different from contradicting him.
And your juxtaposition of quotes makes it look like that second quote was directed at The E, when it was actually directed at NGTM-1R. I hope that wasn't your intention.
Why should that have any bearing on how karajorma behaves? Both you and NGTM-1R responded civilly to that post.
Because neither of them caught on to exactly what you did. Having been asked for a reputable source you deliberately posted one you knew would be unacceptable to those people arguing against you. You've been on this forum long enough to know that the Daily Mail is probably one of the worst news sources on the planet and that it is especially unacceptable to anyone of a left-wing point of view. You know damn well that posting anything from the Daily Mail is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to sources. You've been around long enough to know that simply posting a Daily Mail article is immediately followed by someone having to go to the trouble of finding a website that shows it has been discredited (in exactly the same way I had to).
So given all that, as far as I'm concerned, you posted a bad faith argument. You knew the exact effect posting a Daily Mail story would have, yet you made no attempt to find a better source. I could try to read between the lines about your motives for doing so but I'm simply going to leave it at publicly putting it on record that you now know that those of us on this board consider the Mail to be at about the same level of reputability as the Sunday Sport or National Enquirer.
Ah, you're giving me too much credit here. I'm in the same boat as Bobboau; I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail last time I posted a link it.
I take issue with your statement "you made no attempt to find a better source" though. I cited multiple sources, only one of which was the Daily Mail.
-
Yes, but you cited multiple sources that confirmed your point of view. Given how easy it was to prove the 750 French No-Go areas was false (literally 1 minute for me on Bing, not even Google) the obvious conclusion is that you only looked at sites which confirmed your biases and didn't bother trying to look for anything which showed that they were wrong.
More importantly though, if you are not familiar enough with British culture to know that The Daily Mail is a rag, then perhaps you shouldn't contradict people who seem certain that they are correct. I'm from the UK so I obviously know the culture of my country very well. If you aren't familiar with my culture (and if you don't know the names of the main newspapers, you probably aren't) then it takes quite a large amount of hubris to tell me I'm flat out wrong about it. Had you asked why that article wasn't proof of the existence of No-go zones I would have been a lot more civil.
-
WTG France, bomb the **** out of those bastards.
-
And your juxtaposition of quotes makes it look like that second quote was directed at The E, when it was actually directed at NGTM-1R. I hope that wasn't your intention.
No, it wasn't, it was more a "Practice what you preach" remark.
-
Yes, but you cited multiple sources that confirmed your point of view. Given how easy it was to prove the 750 French No-Go areas was false (literally 1 minute for me on Bing, not even Google) the obvious conclusion is that you only looked at sites which confirmed your biases and didn't bother trying to look for anything which showed that they were wrong.
:wtf: What kind of circular logic is this? If I'm looking to prove a point I'm obviously going to cite evidence in support of that point.
You, on the other hand, are not showing any indication that you actually read the articles that I linked. The American Thinker article says, in the second sentence, "For the record, there are no "official" no-go zones anywhere in Europe." You've gone and congratulated yourself -- twice -- for disproving an argument that I never advanced in the first place.
You're trying to paint the situation as black-and-white, as if I'm saying that there is full-fledged Sharia and that non-Muslims are entirely prohibited. The full story is more complex, and it's a delicate subject. Of course the official word is that there is no problem and everything is fine. You might be content to stop there, but I'm interested in the truth, not merely the party line.
This (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france) page has some more thorough on-the-ground reporting on the sort of circumstances one finds in the Sensitive Urban Zones. (It was linked by both the American Thinker article and the Snopes article, incidentally.)
More importantly though, if you are not familiar enough with British culture to know that The Daily Mail is a rag, then perhaps you shouldn't contradict people who seem certain that they are correct. I'm from the UK so I obviously know the culture of my country very well. If you aren't familiar with my culture (and if you don't know the names of the main newspapers, you probably aren't) then it takes quite a large amount of hubris to tell me I'm flat out wrong about it. Had you asked why that article wasn't proof of the existence of No-go zones I would have been a lot more civil.
What I said was "I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail". That has to do with you in particular. I don't categorically rule out a news source just because it's a rag or it has a spotty record; if I limited myself to sources which were never in error I wouldn't be on the Internet. As I said earlier in this thread, a good scandal has an element of truth.
In the US, MSNBC has the same reputation to those on the right that Fox News has to those on the left. But if someone making an argument cited one of those sites, I would do them the courtesy of reading it regardless of which one it was.
-
In the US, MSNBC has the same reputation to those on the right that Fox News has to those on the left. But if someone making an argument cited one of those sites, I would do them the courtesy of reading it regardless of which one it was.
MSNBC has a reputation as the propaganda arm of a political party that routinely flat-out lies to its audience? This is news to me.
-
@Aesaar
Yes, the ones who left left and the ones who didn't staid, that's quite tautological.
There are Christian westerners who grew up in the west, are part of the culture, and who you would say have massive privilege in the culture who think the west is of the devil and corrupting the youth, people who none the less move into more "liberal" cities for their career, I'm see no reason to assume there are no Muslims who do the same.
OK, I'll give you Jordan, but you are actually calling the UAE and Saudi "There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"-on-it's-****ing-flag Arabia non-theocracies? I suppose maybe technically they are Monarchies, but that is at best pedantic. At least you are not contesting my assertion that they are totalitarian, which is the reason I was asserting why they don't have a whole lot of internal terrorism, and honestly they do have a fair decent amount of that even with their focus on control of their population.
So, when you say "large-scale terrorism" you mean like the christian militia movement (some of them/debatable), or the KKK/Arian Nation, or the Weathermen in the US, or the to look outside the US how about the IRA or the ETA? it seems the only thing that stopped these things from becoming paramilitary is a strong existing central military power and it sure as hell didn't stop them from being highly effective terrorist groups so the only thing missing in the comparison to ISIS specifically is the ability to hold land, but I don't see why that's relevant to a discussion about terrorism in general.
"Religion absolutely fills this hole, but it is by no means the only thing that does. Communism did the job perfectly well in both Russia and China."
I absolutely unconditionally agree with this statement.
Though I often think of Communism as tantamount to a religion.
"And I think Islam is as compatible with western liberalism as Christianity is."
I don't disagree with you. but possibly not in the way you think. Christianity has been on a slow decline the last few hundred years and on a rather rapid collapse the last 50ish. If Islam was forced to play by the same rules Christianity has in recent history it would likely be in the same boat.
My point is that the IS sympathisers in Europe didn't start a war in their home countries. They went to Syria to fight there. The political circumstances in Western European countries do not favor the development of domestic terrorist organisations. Unlike Iraq and Syria.
There's a significant difference between not being willing to leave a place where you're already established even when you dislike it, and moving to that place. If they must move, I don't think you'll see too many American fundamentalist Christians moving to San Francisco if they have the option of going pretty much anywhere else. Same idea here.
A theocracy is a specific form of government. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with a state religion. The UAE is a state of 7 such monarchies. That they have state religions does not make them theocracies. Like I said to 666maslo66 earlier, if a state religion makes a country a theocracy, then the UK is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England) one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Spiritual).
Did you read the rest of the thread at all? Because I talked about the IRA a lot as an example of a terrorist movement that wasn't Muslim and ended pretty neatly despite the UK not resorting to 666maslo666's notion of 'deport all the potential terrorists'. I'm not really sure what you're arguing about.
-
So, there are apparently areas we can call "immigrant ghettos", where crime rate is relatively high and going inside is discouraged, especially at night. And even officers think twice before they enter without good support. Should we call them "no-go zones" or not? Semantics.. The definition of a no-go zone would probably be different if you are a man or woman, strong or weak etc..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseng%C3%A5rd#Violence
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/world/europe/27sweden.html
>Rosengard hardly has the look of a troubled ghetto. Lawns and playgrounds abound. But the area does not look like traditional Sweden, either. Satellite dishes hang from every balcony. The bakery sells Middle Eastern confections. Al Jazeera plays on the televisions. And young men huddle on street corners casually bragging about doing battle with the police.
>A few years ago, the fire and ambulance brigades would not even enter Rosengard without a police escort. Youths there threw rocks and set cars on fire. Police officials say things are much better now. Fires were down 40 percent last year compared with 2009. But last month, two police vehicles parked at the station were set on fire with small homemade explosives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-15/belgium-targets-molenbeek-neighborhood-in-anti-terror-clampdown
>Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel called for a stricter clampdown in Molenbeek, the municipality hosting the largest population of North African descent in the Belgian capital and an apparent hot spot for terrorist activity as shown by its involvement in earlier attacks and foiled plots this year.
>“Almost every single time there’s a link with Molenbeek,” Michel said on VRT television. “Interior Minister Jan Jambon has already taken initiatives against radicalism, against terrorism in a preventive strategy, but we need more forceful action as well.”
Perhaps people in the west are already used to the fact that in a city there are inevitably certain "bad parts of town", minority neighbourhoods that are best to be avoided, so they dont consider this a big problem. But with the exception of a few Roma areas such as Lunix IX in Kosice, I dont know of any such areas in Slovakia, and I would like to keep it that way. We dont need another problematic minority with above average crime rate that could form similar ghettos, enough problems with the Roma integration already, and they dont even have widespread religious extremism ;)
-
Did you fail to notice the part about chronic unemployment in that particular part of town?
If I'm looking to prove a point I'm obviously going to cite evidence in support of that point.
You might be content to stop there, but I'm interested in the truth, not merely the party line.
You don't see how those two are contrary to each other? Sorry Goober but you aren't the slightest bit interested in the truth. If you were, you wouldn't still be defending posting the article from The American Thinker. That is an article written in 2015 containing details from the 2006 article by Daniel Pipes that you should know damn well were debunked by Daniel Pipes himself in 2013. You've accused me of not reading the article but have you? Actually, **** that, why hasn't the author of that piece read the article he's ****ing quoting from? The first thing the article says is
[Author's note: Please note that the update of Jan. 16, 2013 substantially changes my understanding of the ZUS.]
and then he goes and quotes something from the 2006 part of it as if that's somehow not incredibly dodgy!
More importantly though, since you were complaining at me about not having read the article, I know you must have read Snopes and the original Daniel Pipes article. So why, knowing what you obviously do now, knowing that The American Thinker article has done some seriously dubious stuff, are you still trying to use it as evidence instead of dropping it like a kid who thinks he's found some chocolate would as soon as his friends start pointing out that it's actually dog ****.
I'm angry about this cause there is a bad faith argument going on here. I know the author of The American Thinker posted a bad faith article that said things even his own damn source now disagrees with. But what worries me is that you are continuing to defend it. Now it's quite possible that when this article first came to your attention you didn't realise what **** it was. But now, you're still trying to argue it's good. To me that either means you are the same kind of wilfully ignorant that you have previously complained at others for, or that you went into this knowing that the article in American Thinker was dodgy but hoped to pull the wool over our eyes.
What I said was "I honestly didn't remember that you had such a reaction to the Daily Mail". That has to do with you in particular. I don't categorically rule out a news source just because it's a rag or it has a spotty record; if I limited myself to sources which were never in error I wouldn't be on the Internet. As I said earlier in this thread, a good scandal has an element of truth.
I don't rule out the Daily Mail just because that is the source. I just get automatically more distrustful. But when there are massive, massive gaps in the narrative I get suspicious. When it is claiming something as ****ing big as no-go zones and no one else is claiming they exist. Not even people who ****ing live in the places named, then I get very, very suspicious about them.
-
Did you fail to notice the part about chronic unemployment in that particular part of town?
Nope, but thats a given, its not like you can easily change it. If we had a magic wand to get rid of unemployment/poverty, we would have already used it on already existing poor areas. Its not wise to import more poverty when you cant even solve what you already have.
-
Yeah, but the point is that it might be nothing to do with cultural issues and everything to do with poverty again. In which case your solution of deporting people is actually going to make things worse. Let me point out why you can't do the deporting thing Trump wants to do (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34789502) as an example.
-
Yeah, but the point is that it might be nothing to do with cultural issues and everything to do with poverty again.
There are many examples of poor areas without religious extremism (like the Roma areas here, they are pretty much atheists, or black people in the US, from what I know), or wealthy areas with religious extremism (southern US), so I dont think you can blame solely poverty for that, culture definitely plays a role too. But as I said, even if its poverty, its not like that makes things better, you cannot easily change the poverty factor too.
In which case your solution of deporting people is actually going to make things worse. Let me point out why you can't do the deporting thing Trump wants to do as an example.
I am talking first and foremost about restrictions on further immigration, not deportations, thats a pretty radical solution, especially deporting "every single one" as Trump says. Anyway, the situation in the US with Mexican immigrants is pretty different, I dont think you can directly compare the two like that. For one thing, Mexican immigrants in the US are much less problematic and more integrated than MENA immigrants in the EU (from what I have read, all relevant metrics such as prevalence of religious extremism, crime rates, employment and economic statistics are much worse in the latter). It can very well be the case that its not worth the hassle in the US, but it is worth it in the EU.
-
Intelligence on the Paris attacks is starting to come out, and as with 9/11 it seems very much like there were a series of intelligence failures — super close calls that could've stopped the attacks if information was shared better or examined more closely.
As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants. You win by making your existing systems work better.
-
Please read this article from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-say-french-will-now-realize-theres-a-war-on/2015/11/15/2ebd84e6-8b9f-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html
-
So Israel is complaining about something they're not really dealing with themselves.
Good to know!
(The tone of the Israelis quoted there is hilarious considering that their own, domestic enemies are strictly opposed to ISIS.)
-
“to control the ground, go into the villages, demolish terrorists’ homes and take preventive action against the infrastructures of terrorism.
I wonder what Netanyahu wants the french to do. Blow up the banlieue?
-
actually... probably
-
An Israeli politician cynically using the death of innocents in an attempt to justify their policy in Palestine? Well it's not like that hasn't happened 6 million times before.
-
Honestly, Israel's getting a pretty sweet deal out of the ISIS thing, as most of the big enemies of the Little Satan are expending their energies on fighting it rather than Israel.
-
There is a push against encryption yet again using this tragedy as a means to gain political capital, even though the intelligence failure had nothing to do with encryption.
-
As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.
Yeah, right..
Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.
It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.
Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.
But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..
-
As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.
Yeah, right..
Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.
It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.
Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.
But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..
UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear. You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.
-
As usual, the solution to these problems is the opposite of 'lock down immigration', literally handing Daesh exactly what it wants.
Yeah, right..
Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.
It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.
Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.
But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..
(http://i.imgur.com/kEpemUE.gif)
Your arguments have fallen back to 'you're wrong because you're wrong; you are uninformed and mistaken, you are trying to be wrong, you are an expert at being wrong'. As more information about the etiology of the Paris attacks comes out, you find yourself unable to integrate it into your model. Why are the attackers ISIS-trained militants who moved between Europe and the Middle East? Why does it seem like good intelligence work and better border security could have prevented these attacks, just like 9/11?
You don't know. And as we open up the etiology of Daesh itself, the ideological and political drivers that create terrorists and fighters, you find that your model cannot explain either the origins or goals of terrorism. Why is Daesh's high-level rhetoric all about apocalyptic Islam, while its low-level fighters talk about the need for local security and the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq? You don't know.
And there's a good reason why!
Your presence in this thread has been a long, coherent argument as to why terrorism works. You are the ideal terrorist target. A terrorist attack happens, and you reply with, 'well, we should do exactly what the terrorists want: we should escalate, to prevent further attacks. We should do what's necessary in the short run, and deal with the long run later.'
I have a period of history for you to read up on! It is the years 2001-2015. Examine these years. Compare the amount of damage done by terrorist attacks to the amount of damage done by clumsy responses to terrorist attacks.
Then look up the origins of prevalent modern terrorist and radical movements. You will find, at the root of each, a series of compromises and short-term solutions by Western powers: choices to prop up strongmen or topple governments in the name of short-term interest.
The thinking you advocate has dominated for a century. It has failed again and again. But it appeals to you because of the kneejerk emotional need for immediate safety.
-
Terrorist attacks are very ineffective forms of warfare. They cannot meaningfully compromise the target's ability to retaliate.
Terrorist attacks are excellent tools of rhetoric and policy. They can manipulate the target into compromising itself.
It's ironic that, a century later, we're back to 'the bomber always gets through.' You will never prevent every attack. But you can prevent the attacks from achieving their objectives. That's where we are now: the attack has not yet succeeded, but right here you can see people arguing that it should.
And these objectives aren't even concealed! Daesh explains them nakedly, in plain words. But somehow people think 'we should not do what Daesh wants' qualifies as 'the opposite of what should be done.'
-
The thinking you advocate has dominated for a century. It has failed again and again. But it appeals to you because of the kneejerk emotional need for immediate safety.
Quite the opposite. I dont care much about immediate safety. Indeed, as I sad many times, there is probably no way how the west could prevent random freak attacks by a truly determined opponent such as ISIS. Sporadic attacks, such as 9/11, will happen from time to time. So just accept it and move on.
What the West can do is to keep this situation from getting worse over the long term, over decades or more. And spatial separation policy is the key for that.
-
"What the West can do to keep this situation from getting worse over the long term, is to cave to Daesh's demands. That should help."
Like I said, you provide the ideal target. They expend nothing, and they get everything: you voluntarily disarm yourself of all your most powerful tools. If you are, in fact, thinking in the long term, then you realize the long term is already pointed towards your victory.
-
I believe Daesh surely wants open borders so we should do the opposite. At the same time, muslims should be treated reasonably well, tough. So they dont needlessly radicalize. These two things are not in conflict.
But anyway, do you have any other argument rather than "thats what Daesh wants so we dont do it"? Daesh is a crazy apocalyptic cult, letting what Daesh wants define your policy is stupid. Rather you should define it rationally based on what you want. And thats what I am doing.
-
And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it? All these terrorists want us to be more repressive, less liberal, more islamophobic and racist so they can get more recruits, more followers willing to blow themselves up. It's a moral imperative that we do not give them more ammunition for their propaganda war, and we can do that by not taking the bait they're laying out.
-
UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear. You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.
Lost my post so once again.. :)
It does not matter whether you "react in fear" or are brave. Fear is an emotion that has evolved for a reason and ignoring it may very well be stupid. I dont like this demonization of fear, as if it could never be due to a rational reason. One who ignores real threats in order not to be "fearful" is an idiot.
What matters is whether your reaction is good or bad, not whether it is "based on fear".
And it think pursuing spatial separation policy (including well protected borders and tight immigration policy) is what can greatly reduce both future terrorist attacks on European soil, but also low level islamist violence and ethnic conflicts inside Europe (which while not as serious may be much more widespread). It wont prevent all attacks tough, but I am ont promising that.
-
I believe Daesh surely wants open borders so we should do the opposite. At the same time, muslims should be treated reasonably well, tough. So they dont needlessly radicalize. These two things are not in conflict.
But anyway, do you have any other argument rather than "thats what Daesh wants so we dont do it"? Daesh is a crazy apocalyptic cult, letting what Daesh wants define your policy is stupid. Rather you should define it rationally based on what you want. And thats what I am doing.
Scroll up, read posts. You're quick to throw accusations about ignorance but apparently don't even understand the gap between Daesh theology, the motives of their foreign recruits and operatives, and the motives of their ground-level fighters. You also think Daesh wants open borders, when the stated goal of Daesh is to drive a wedge between moderate Muslims and the West!
Indeed, letting Daesh define your policy is stupid.
The idea that immigrants are a menace and a security risk is a dogwhistle used by the right. Terrorists can be tracked and stopped by law enforcement: this is and always has been true.
You are unable to rationally articulate either the basis or the goals of your argument: even within your own last post you are utterly incoherent! You say, "Daesh wants one thing, so we should do the opposite." Then you say, "but do you have an argument beyond that's what Daesh wants, so we shouldn't do it?" This is doublethink.
Let's go back here:
Yeah, right..
Do that and you may as well get used to experiencing regular bloody attacks every year. As the new normal.
It is literally the very opposite of what should be done.
Sorry to say it bluntly, but you are not just uninformed or somewhat mistaken about this issue, you go out of your way to be as wrong as possible about it. Its like watching an expert at being wrong display his art for all to see.
But I know we will probably never agree about it, so further discussion seems pointless..
You go from 'we should do this to prevent regular bloody attacks' to 'well, we can't prevent every attack', to 'spatial separation is the key', to 'well, muslims should be treated well, so they don't needlessly radicalize.'
Which is it? Where are you? The spatial separation argument is foolhardy: the West's policy is not spatially separated from the Middle East, and even if they are not here, we are there. Even if everything we had in the Middle East vanished tomorrow, the effects of our actions would linger in economy, in structure, in memory.
Spatial separation is impossible. The world is too small.
-
Back to clean up later, gotta get some chapters done.
-
And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it?
Nothing much? As I said, letting your policy be defined as "opposite to ISIS" is dumb. ISIS is not a rational enemy.
But as I said, I believe what Daesh truly wants is open borders + increased racism. Both of these are part of their plans. So what we should do, assuming we want to do the opposite of what Daesh wants, is tightly controlled borders + dont be racist.
And that position lies outside of usual left-right dichotomy, which is a tough pill for most ideologues to swallow..
-
What they want is irrelevant. Stop using that as a talking point. Doing the oposite of what they want is just as much letting them dictate our policy as doing what they want. They want oxygen in the atmosphere too, does that mean we should start fixing it out of the air?
-
Spatial separation is impossible. The world is too small.
I dont believe that for a second. It is easily possible. Dont try to tell me a modern developed nation is incapable of protecting its borders and enforcing who gets in and who doesnt.
You are unable to rationally articulate either the basis or the goals of your argument: even within your own last post you are utterly incoherent! You say, "Daesh wants one thing, so we should do the opposite." Then you say, "but do you have an argument beyond that's what Daesh wants, so we shouldn't do it?" This is doublethink.
I am coherent enough, but maybe you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that we should not let Daesh define our policy. But at the same time, that my position is still the opposite of what Daesh really wants. Which is open borders + more racism. My position is the opposite of that.
he West's policy is not spatially separated from the Middle East, and even if they are not here, we are there.
That is what I mean. When I say spatial separation, I only mean one way, obviously. We can be there if we want, that is not a threat to us.
-
And when what you want aligns very well with the wishes of a rightly reviled and shunned organization, what are we to make of it? All these terrorists want us to be more repressive, less liberal, more islamophobic and racist so they can get more recruits, more followers willing to blow themselves up.
OK, lets say you are right and restricting immigration causes some muslims in Europe to turn to extremism.
Do you really believe that that number will be bigger than the number of extremists prevented by the more strict immigration? I think it will be FAR, FAR lower. Especially in the long run.
-
That is what I mean. When I say spatial separation, I only mean one way, obviously. We can be there if we want, that is not a threat to us.
And you accuse me of naivete!
I have a challenge for you. Read two things.
Read the grievances that drove Al Qaeda to attack the West.
Read this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century)
When you are done you might be able to form a well-founded thought on this topic.
-
UK and Ireland is a RW case that not reacting in fear is the best way to combat this stuff because the terrorists want fear. You dont win this by barricading the tools out, you win by making these attacks ineffective for the organisers to enact, closing borders to immigration just means they have to resort to other means of getting the tools in like people smuggling and visitor visas.
Lost my post so once again.. :)
It does not matter whether you "react in fear" or are brave. Fear is an emotion that has evolved for a reason and ignoring it may very well be stupid. I dont like this demonization of fear, as if it could never be due to a rational reason. One who ignores real threats in order not to be "fearful" is an idiot.
What matters is whether your reaction is good or bad, not whether it is "based on fear".
And it think pursuing spatial separation policy (including well protected borders and tight immigration policy) is what can greatly reduce both future terrorist attacks on European soil, but also low level islamist violence and ethnic conflicts inside Europe (which while not as serious may be much more widespread). It wont prevent all attacks tough, but I am ont promising that.
I am trying to work out why you are so doggedly holding onto this idea that closing borders to immigrants will in any way change the situation.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, closing the borders to immigrants won't stop terrorists from getting in, they have 2 alternative routes of getting terrorists in which took me seconds to think of.
1) People Smuggling, Europe and the USA have a well documented problems stopping people illegally crossing borders because the problem is too big and it isnt just people piggybacked on legitimate trade.
2) Visitor Visas, be it Tourist, Study, Work or Business visas, these things run upwards of 6 months which is more than enough time to put together and execute and attack
The downside of turning away refugees is that we are no longer building good will amongst the legitimate refugees and do you think they want these people in their number? answer is no because it hurts them to have them there, where do you think a bunch of the intelligence comes from about the attacks we catch? because it isn't all Signals Intel
-
I am trying to work out why you are so doggedly holding onto this idea that closing borders to immigrants will in any way change the situation.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, closing the borders to immigrants won't stop terrorists from getting in, they have 2 alternative routes of getting terrorists in which took me seconds to think of.
Because in the long term, the largest number of terrorists will inevitably come from domestic population. They will attack their own countries, often ones they grew up in. Some terrorists may come from abroad, sure. But when it comes to long term security of Europe, preventing the creation of terrorist recruiting grounds inside the continent is what is truly important.
And the best way to do that is tight immigration control.
Besides, as I said, I do not believe mere tight migration control can radicalize moderate muslims. No normal muslim becomes a terrorist only because of tight immigration laws. Thats not how human mind works.
-
And you accuse me of naivete!
I have a challenge for you. Read two things.
Read the grievances that drove Al Qaeda to attack the West.
Read this Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century)
When you are done you might be able to form a well-founded thought on this topic.
Battuta, one way spatial separation is obviously the best security strategy. It maximizes our ability and minimizes theirs. So it is clear that we should pursue it.
Does it mean there will be no terrorists attacks in the West? No. Nobody can guarantee absolute safety. But we can guarantee reasonable safety, and thats what spatial separation (one way, two way, doesnt matter as long as they cannot easily get to us) will lead to.
Does it mean we must get involved in middle east? No. If we choose to, we can disengage from that conflict. I am not necessarily advocating a strong interventionist policy by saying "one way spatial separation". Just that we will have that ability to be there if we want to.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/defeat-isis-muslims-must-reform-sharia-394942
Interesting because it's in newsweek and not the daily mail.
-
What they want is irrelevant. Stop using that as a talking point. Doing the oposite of what they want is just as much letting them dictate our policy as doing what they want. They want oxygen in the atmosphere too, does that mean we should start fixing it out of the air?
Are you saying that sabotaging the enemy's strategic goals is a bad idea?
-
http://www.newsweek.com/defeat-isis-muslims-must-reform-sharia-394942
Interesting because it's in newsweek and not the daily mail.
Could you summarize, quoting the most important parts? It looks like it could be of interest, but the stupid paywall prevents me from accessing it.
-
@Phantom Hoover
I'm saying you are wording it poorly. Say and demonstrate that it is strategically in their interest, lead with how it helps or hurts them, not simply that they want it. just because they want it doesn't mean that is not a blunder on their part.
@Dragon
to cherry pick the parts I'm surprised to hear coming from a non-conservative major media outlet.
"the truth of the matter is that ISIS leaders and supporters can and do draw on a wealth of scriptural and historical sources to justify their actions"
...
"What then is needed is an alternative view of Sharia, one that argues that the scriptural sources that ISIS relies on must be seen in their wider historical context."
...
"But for an alternative view of Sharia to emerge and take root through modern consensus, Muslims must first acknowledge and confront the problem of having acquiesced to a traditional interpretation of Sharia and ignored alternatives that would condemn ISIS as un-Islamic."
TL;DR there are problems in Islam and Muslims need to change it. worded much less antagonistically of course.
of course I'm probably completely misrepresenting it, you should read it for yourself.
-
Battuta, one way spatial separation is obviously the best security strategy. It maximizes our ability and minimizes theirs. So it is clear that we should pursue it.
Spatial separation is impossible. You can't put every passport from a Middle-Eastern country on a no-fly list. The people who carried out the 9/11 attacks didn't plan them in the USA. Closing borders to immigration will not help you.
Besides, as I said, I do not believe mere tight migration control can radicalize moderate muslims. No normal muslim becomes a terrorist only because of tight immigration laws. Thats not how human mind works.
I've already explained to you what drives people to terrorism, and why closing borders would contribute to that. You stubbornly refuse to listen and shift the goalposts or deflect every time someone makes an argument you can't bull**** away. You have utterly failed to address any of the points made by the people who have called you out on your bull****, instead rephrasing crap that was already debunked (which I suspect went over your head).
You are completely ignorant on this topic, yet speak of it with such confidence that you are the most perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) I have ever interacted with. I'd say you were trolling, but you're trying too hard for that. You're just ignorant and proud of it.
This thread has shown me why you're a Star Citizen true believer: you're incapable of coming to terms with the possibility that you might be wrong. You have created a little personal reality bubble, and every time something doesn't match your perception of reality, you ignore it or rationalize it away. If reality conflicts with your beliefs, reality is wrong.
I'm probably gonna get warned for this post, but I don't really care. It saddens me that someone like you can vote. You are the perfect example of why formal post-secondary history education is important.
-
This thread has shown me why you're a Star Citizen true believer: you're incapable of coming to terms with the possibility that you might be wrong. You have created a little personal reality bubble, and every time something doesn't match your perception of reality, you ignore it or rationalize it away. If reality conflicts with your beliefs, reality is wrong.
I was with you there up untill that bit. I'm not sure why bringing up a silly videogame in a discussion topic concerning the death of innocents by the hundreds is a good call.
@Phantom Hoover
I'm saying you are wording it poorly. Say and demonstrate that it is strategically in their interest, lead with how it helps or hurts them, not simply that they want it. just because they want it doesn't mean that is not a blunder on their part.
Because, as others have stated in previous posts (and that ISIS have themselves stated!) the with us or against us philosophy has helped them in the past. They want it because they know it works for them. If this weren't true, they and any other terrorist organisation would have been blundering for the past 14 years now.
-
I'm just saying lead with the it helps them not the they want it. sorry it was just bugging me I'm being pedantic.
-
I was with you there up untill that bit. I'm not sure why bringing up a silly videogame in a discussion topic concerning the death of innocents by the hundreds is a good call.
Example of consistent behavior. And come on, this thread's been silly as hell for a while. We're practically arguing with Slovak Donald Trump.
-
I'm just saying lead with the it helps them not the they want it. sorry it was just bugging me I'm being pedantic.
Aah. Arguably, either lead works depending on who one is talking to.
-
@Dragon
to cherry pick the parts I'm surprised to hear coming from a non-conservative major media outlet.
"the truth of the matter is that ISIS leaders and supporters can and do draw on a wealth of scriptural and historical sources to justify their actions"
...
"What then is needed is an alternative view of Sharia, one that argues that the scriptural sources that ISIS relies on must be seen in their wider historical context."
...
"But for an alternative view of Sharia to emerge and take root through modern consensus, Muslims must first acknowledge and confront the problem of having acquiesced to a traditional interpretation of Sharia and ignored alternatives that would condemn ISIS as un-Islamic."
TL;DR there are problems in Islam and Muslims need to change it. worded much less antagonistically of course.
of course I'm probably completely misrepresenting it, you should read it for yourself.
Ah, that. Well, to be honest, all (or almost all) instances of "Islam" in this thread should be batch-replaced with "Wahhabism" (or Salafism, if you feel respectful for them for whatever strange reason), for better accuracy. It's a particularly rigid, ultra-orthodox, short-sighted literal interpretation of Sunni Islam that came out of Saudi Arabia. Basically Arab version of Westboro Baptist Church, only more widespread. Ever wondered why you don't see Polish Lipka Tatars or even Crimean ones involved in all this? Well, this is because they're not Wahhabis. ISIS is Wahhabi, Al-Quaeda is (Bin Laden himself was from Saudi Arabia) and most of the radicals we see here are as well. Unfortunately, it's pretty common in the Middle East. You can't change Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia without it stopping being Wahhabism (if it was reasonable, it'd just be regular Sunnism).
And yes, it is considered un-Islamic by everyone who's not a Wahhabi, mostly because its highlights are: destruction of most Muslim historical sites in Saudi Arabia, destroying mosques, killing off a whole lot of people for not being Wahhabi enough, giving Muslims everywhere a bad name and causing disrespect towards women. Many others view Sharia completely differently, especially the more spiritual Sufi.
That said, this brings very little to the discussion. It narrows down who we're talking about, but given that refugees come from Syria, I would expect plenty of them to subscribe to this particular doctrine, as it's pretty common in that area, from what I know. Wahhabism is the worst form of Islam and not quite coincidentally, the form we're dealing with here. A quick look at Wikipedia (didn't do in-depth research) shows it spreading rapidly among Sunni Muslims, even among communities in Europe. Syrians are for most part Sunnis and usually either Wahhabist or at least influenced by Wahhabism.
-
@Phantom Hoover
I'm saying you are wording it poorly. Say and demonstrate that it is strategically in their interest, lead with how it helps or hurts them, not simply that they want it. just because they want it doesn't mean that is not a blunder on their part.
Good thing Battuta explained exactly that right after he said it's bad to give Daesh what they want.
-
meh, read my response to josh about me being pedantic.
-
Spatial separation is impossible. You can't put every passport from a Middle-Eastern country on a no-fly list. The people who carried out the 9/11 attacks didn't plan them in the USA. Closing borders to immigration will not help you.
You surely can require visa for everyone coming from muslim majority country. Securing the borders will certainly help, too. It will not be 100% tight, but then we do not need it to be. You probably think that by spatial separation I mean "no muslim shall set foot into glorious European soil ever", or some other ridiculous strawman you made up in your mind. I dont. Tight immigration policy is entirely realistic, if only there was sufficient political will in western Europe..
The rest of your post is one giant ad-hominem, there wont be productive discussion about that..
-
Example of consistent behavior. And come on, this thread's been silly as hell for a while. We're practically arguing with Slovak Donald Trump.
Yes, because if one happens to not be very fond of the fact that everyone and their dog can just walk from the middle of Syria straight into Paris at will, he must be some crazy far right winger whose opinions are automatically invalid..
I am putting European migration policy into the center of this discussion because that is where it belongs. Ignoring this means shutting your eyes before reality.
-
You believe that Western presence in the Middle East poses no risk of terrorism. You don't get to take any stance about access to reality.
Doesn't every single nation in the EU already require a visa for Syrian citizens to enter?
-
You surely can require visa for everyone coming from muslim majority country. Securing the borders will certainly help, too. It will not be 100% tight, but then we do not need it to be. You probably think that by spatial separation I mean "no muslim shall set foot into glorious European soil ever", or some other ridiculous strawman you made up in your mind. I dont. Tight immigration policy is entirely realistic, if only there was sufficient political will in western Europe..
Do you think the people who carried out 9/11 were legal immigrants?
-
You believe that Western presence in the Middle East poses no risk of terrorism. You don't get to take any stance about access to reality.
Doesn't every single nation in the EU already require a visa for Syrian citizens to enter?
Nope, I believe Western presence in the Middle East poses a risk of terrorism, relatively small risk but still.
This risk gets hugely inflated by Middle East presence in the West. Thats the important part and one Europe should address.
EU migration control has collapsed (maybe except for V4), so whether it does require visa in theory or not is irrelevant. What I want is for migration control be be tightened and then actually enforced in reality. Not interested in what is only on paper.
-
Key word: LEGAL
Can you tell me how many of the newcomers are LEGAL migrants? It's not even about migrant procedures. Can't expect them in that chaos. How many of them have proper documents that can assure us that they are indeed refugees from Syria Iraq and not for example economical migrants from Africa using that chaos only to get to Europe for "high-life" or worse: ISIS moles? I know. There is war. People are fleeing and often cannot take more then clothes they have on themselves. But I've already posted a link where a guy from Netherlands acquired a fake Syrian passport made in Turkey for 800$ and travelled with it without any problems.
I noticed that every time someone mentions "tightened immigration policy" most of you imagine soldiers rushing towards immigrants camps/estates with rifles, beating and packing them on trucks and driving away.
By tightening and securing our migrant policy we should be able to counter such threats like using faked documents or seamless movement without any documents!. I don't need to explain how dangerous may be people using fake-forged ID's.
-
Your goalposts are in orbit by now. You can't connect your model to the causes of terrorism, you can't figure out the causes of terrorism, the demands you make are already in place, you believe that Western presence in the Middle East is not a major driver of terrorism in spite of the last thirty years of history — do you have anything left?
-
Your goalposts are in orbit by now. You can't connect your model to the causes of terrorism, you can't figure out the causes of terrorism, the demands you make are already in place, you believe that Western presence in the Middle East is not a major driver of terrorism in spite of the last thirty years of history — do you have anything left?
Oh, come on. Devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan was just a small accident :)
-
Your goalposts are in orbit by now. You can't connect your model to the causes of terrorism, you can't figure out the causes of terrorism, the demands you make are already in place, you believe that Western presence in the Middle East is not a major driver of terrorism in spite of the last thirty years of history — do you have anything left?
Oh, come on. Devastation of Iraq, Afghanistan was just a small accident :)
Seriously. The notion of 'spatial separation' is the weirdest misunderstanding of global politics I've heard of since mercantilism.
Dude should read the 9/11 Commission Report.
-
Your goalposts are in orbit by now. You can't connect your model to the causes of terrorism, you can't figure out the causes of terrorism, the demands you make are already in place, you believe that Western presence in the Middle East is not a major driver of terrorism in spite of the last thirty years of history — do you have anything left?
You still deny that muslim presence in Europe is a major driver of terrorism (and other extremism), despite the last 15 years of history. Anything to shift attention away from the elephant in the room..
And really, demands I am making are already in place? Are we living in the same universe? Please take me to this parallel reality, where Europe immigration control is not in a state of complete collapse for more than 6 months now, I would like to live there instead of this mess.
-
What everyone in this thread is denying is that your proposals will do any good. You're operating on some mercantilist theory of human interaction — and it's got the same level of efficacy.
Reply to the points made to you. Don't disengage and run to some other point, or fall back on personal attacks.
-
The reason you're getting thrashed up and down every page is because you do not actually make arguments connected to the real world.
For example, here is an argument connected to the real world: "Terrorism is driven by failures of economic opportunity."
This argument is obviously incomplete. But it can be engaged with using facts. You might say, "no, you can see that theology is important in converting economic inopportunity into terrorist action."
But you don't propose models of how the world works. Instead, you say, "There are too many immigrants in Europe. They are coming in too fast. This causes terrorism." When told that the terrorism was not caused by immigrants, you say, "We need to stop immigration, so that terrorism will be reduced." When told that this will not reduce terrorism, you say, "We need to enforce better immigration policy." When told that terrorism is often permitted by failures in already existing intelligence tracking, you say, "We need to do more about immigration."
When told that your policy is in line with Daesh demands, you say "It doesn't matter, they are not rational." Then you say "Daesh actually wants more immigration, so we should prevent immigration."
You advocate a doctrine of spatial separation to lower terrorism. You say that Western presence in the Middle East is safe and not a risk, you say that it is safe as long as there are few Muslims in the West. When told that major attacks against the West were not plotted or primarily executed in the West, you say that...I don't know: you don't seem able to address this point. You probably go back to saying that Muslims are bad.
You are arguing through a cycle of evasions which never requires you to once engage with reality.
Here is the reality:
Terrorist attacks are rare and ineffective. They do not cause much damage. This is cold, but true.
The responses to terrorist attacks are deleterious and large. They cause severe damage. Over and over, they play into terrorist hands.
Immigrants to the West are not a significant threat. Our existing law enforcement and intelligence apparatus are capable of (but not always effective at) averting terrorism.
Western responses to terrorism (especially terrorism targeting our attitude towards immigrants and the Middle East) are a serious threat. They create new terrorists.
Daesh's goals include driving a wedge between moderate Muslims and the West.
Radicalization in Muslims is driven in large part by the perception of a war against Islam in the West.
Daesh obtains strategic advantage when the West feeds this perception.
Right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment is Daesh's goal.
-
If immigrants are the problem, what do we do about radicalized Muslims born in Europe - like the man who masterminded the Paris attacks?
If all Muslims are the problem, do we then treat all Muslims as potential terrorists?
If European-born Muslims who travel to Iraq/Syria to train with Daesh are a problem, isn't the real problem with European immigration to the Middle East?
-
Or, alternately:
Let's say one of the Paris attackers, or many of them, turn out to have arrived with groups of Syrian refugees.
Which option creates more terror attacks: turning away all Syrian refugees, or accepting and encamping Syrian refugees? Which option grants Daesh a larger strategic victory?
e: I feel that we should not let you slip away from the claim that demographic collapse doesn't harm economics, because it's, again, so out of touch with reality. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography) A Europe without immigrants is a Europe facing Japan's future.
-
Interestingly, not many people commented on the link about Sweden, where there are already regions where immigrants boast "this is an area that is no more controlled by Sweden". Which of course is a bit hilarious given the division of power between Swedish army and the immigrants for anybody with a bit of logical power behind them. Malmö, Göteborg and Stockholm all already have regions, where it is not advised to travel at night. Mind you, this is NOT normal in a Nordic country. Interestingly, it is only Middle Eastern immigrants who have massive difficulties in mixing in with the locals, whereas people arriving from any other part of the world never had such problems.
Now, I'm not Swedish, but from their neighbor, who has just received a **** ton of refugees Sweden happily let though the borders and actually PAID their trips to Norway and Finland. So the Finns are already pissed off due to budget cuts, and given the cost of the immigration, we are talking about something like 3 Billion, which handily negates any and all savings which were already difficult to accomplish. Currently, for first time of 300 years, people are talking about putting border guards on the WESTERN Finnish border. And I'm actually eager to volunteer for military service - let's call it "internal peacekeeping" for more internationally accepted politically correct term - for cracking some heads if need be.
Well, it's not like we wouldn't be able to accommodate something like half a million people (history shows we have already done this), but the problem is, these guys don't play by our rules. They are also quite demanding on what it comes to living conditions and food - so demanding that majority is now thinking these guys are not refugees at all. So demanding that they got Finns pissed off again by going to hunger strike. I was about to drive to the reception center and effing eat that food myself, hell, I've paid for it anyways. The refugees living standard refugees had the nerve to stage a demonstration next to the police station about this. Apparently, when the situation became clear to them, they had to stage ANOTHER demonstration where they were very grateful for any help they got. That's more like the attitude.
It tells something that the pilot jacket dudes with bald heads have risen again to patrol the streets even in this city - next time I'll probably salute them, and that should give a hint of things not being exactly right. Given the criminal record of the recent "refugees" that arrived in the end of 90s, they are twenty(!) times more likely to be involved in a violent criminal activity compared to normal Finns. And people coming from other countries like Turkey, Egypt, Brazilia, Peru and such have never complained about the Finnish support policy of the immigrants or refugees. Hell, even they are complaining about Iraqis and Somalians not lifting a finger for their own good.
Currently, most of us are wishing for a effing cold and long winter with two metric tons of snow per square meter. And given that the Red Cross has now stated there is no more room in the reception centers, the next dudes coming here get to live in tents. Having done that myself in the winter during army and knowing what this entails, that's more the message I'd like to hear!
Have I mentioned a Finnish politician had the "wisdom" of proposing partial application of Sharia law when it does not contradict with Finnish law? That happened in 2010, and was probably the last move as an active politician for the guy. This was opposed by something like 98 % of the population, and the agreeing 2 % are not difficult to guess. However, it does make a point: for some reason, these dudes are trying to push the Sharia law forwards.
So while the terrorist act in Paris is indeed a regrettable incident, it is not unpredictable that it took place. It is also an intelligence community failure on the French part. Apparently, they have now responded by starting a massive aerial bombing against ISIS, and have apparently destroyed several targets of significance. Now, I'm sort of interested to see whether ISIS will lift a finger against Russia, as that county responds dis-proportionally on terrorism (and to make things clear, I don't particularly like Russia). One of the more memorable incidents is the capture of four Soviet diplomats in Beirut. The first diplomat was found killed, but the three others were returned unharmed, and no such incident has repeated as far as I know. What was the Soviet response to the kidnappings? KGB captured the brother of the terrorist organization, mutilated him, and send him back piece by piece. And the accompanying letter mentioned they know where to find the rest of the relatives.
-
You could mad lib that post with Irish immigrants, black migrants in the American North, the Chinese, the Jews...integration sucks.
Bombing Daesh in Iraq isn't going to do much but maintain status quo.
e: I forgot Hispanic immigrants to the US and Somali refugees, I'm pretty sure I heard that same speech from a lumberjack in my hometown.
-
I have to think they run the risk of dehumanizing themselves enough that the West no longer cares to respond in a restricted manner though. If ISIS started conducting small scale, high tempo attacks across Europe and North America how long before people stop caring about logical responses and start putting suspect populations in camps at home and unleashing unrestricted warfare abroad?
You can look at it analytically at a remove but ounce you start dealing with it personally how long before you simply want blood?
-
That's what Daesh wants. Remember that their end times theology includes the belief that they will ultimately be defeated by an army led by the Anti-messiah, and beaten back into their heartland — only to be saved at the last moment by divine intervention.
Most Muslims are kafir in Daesh eyes, so triggering deportation/concentration/outride genocide and massive warfare is a win win proposition. They get more martyrs, they kill the very people they want to kill anyway (all Shia, for instance), and they get closer to their apocalyptic win condition.
-
Well, considering the radio news stations that are normally calling for 'diplomacy' any time there was an incident abroad were calling for nukes to be launched the day of 9/11? Not too long. I know that was in the heat of the moment, but I thought conservatives were supposed to be the hotheads... Source: Was listening, heard that, my jaw dropped (dropping a nuke would be highly ineffective unless all radical terrorists sequestered themselves in isolation in a remote desert city, and even then, I think a few judiciously placed Daisy Cutters would work just fine with less rads to deal with afterwards.)
-
where there are already regions where immigrants boast "this is an area that is no more controlled by Sweden".
I'm pretty sure I saw this on a New York newspaper cover in 1860, almost verbatim, except they were talking about Hell's Kitchen and Irish guys.
-
Well, the integration is indeed even worse in US than what it is here. At least on Maryland and in New England from what I saw.
The difference is, we provide services for integration on much higher level than what is available in the US. Suspiciously, only Iraqis and Somalis have problems with this system. The boat refugees didn't have that, nor have Nepalese or Chinese, or South Americans. Neither do Egyptians and some earlier Libyans.
However, there's a fundamental difference on what it comes to refugees: The Finnish system considers the refugee status as sort of a combination being born in a wrong place in a wrong time, just unlucky. Hence, the aim of the system is to provide equivalent of a middle class income for a refugee who has allegedly left everything behind. This is all paid by the tax payers, and a lot of Finns consider this fair, given the refugees are really refugees and not in the name only. Note that this doesn't happen in the US.
Understandably, Finns are quite a bit pissed off when it turns out that the "refugees" contain alarming number of suspected ISIS members, war criminals and such. Smooching underaged girls has already become such an issue that it is a wonder Finns haven't already started to deliver some good old mob justice. That point is actually not very far from what I've heard. The police has already taken some "refugees" under custody to protect their continuing well-being - which I suspect was a matter of tens of minutes without their intervention.
Luckily it is also so that "We have a dream" bunch mainly lives in Southern Finland, and that's where most of the "refugees" are going to move at some point, given the harsher winter here. So in a way, there's some poetic justice in all this.
EDIT:
Quote from: Mika on November 16, 2015, 06:55:51 pm
where there are already regions where immigrants boast "this is an area that is no more controlled by Sweden".
I'm pretty sure I saw this on a New York newspaper cover in 1860, almost verbatim, except they were talking about Hell's Kitchen and Irish guys.
Yeah, and was it acceptable back then? And how long did it take that Hell's Kitchen got over that reputation? I tend to recall reading about violence taking place there up till 1980s. We just don't wait 100 years here.
Also, am I badly mistaken when I think that New York city hot beds calmed down when police force was increased, quite a bunch of people were jailed, and some of them forcibly moved?
-
Well, the integration is indeed even worse in US than what it is here. At least on Maryland and in New England from what I saw.
Well no, the point is that the Irish in America are pretty much totally integrated by now.
-
Battuta, rather than quadruple-posting, have you considered starting a blog? Or writing another novel?
I think it's worth keeping in mind that no matter what anybody says on this thread, history will prove whether 666maslo666 or his antagonists are correct. I personally expect the political landscape in Europe to change dramatically over the next few years.
And considering how quickly this thread has grown, I'm not sure how worthwhile it is replying to a post from three pages ago, but...
I'm angry about this cause there is a bad faith argument going on here. I know the author of The American Thinker posted a bad faith article that said things even his own damn source now disagrees with. But what worries me is that you are continuing to defend it. Now it's quite possible that when this article first came to your attention you didn't realise what **** it was. But now, you're still trying to argue it's good. To me that either means you are the same kind of wilfully ignorant that you have previously complained at others for, or that you went into this knowing that the article in American Thinker was dodgy but hoped to pull the wool over our eyes.
You continue to say that the Daniel Pipes blog debunks the American Thinker article that quotes it, even though I've twice pointed out that it doesn't. The part is not equivalent to the whole. If you're going to continue to misrepresent my points after my repeated clarifications then you're the one arguing in bad faith, not me.
I could say more but I think my time will be more productively spent handling Vasudan Admiral's SCP request.
-
You continue to say that the Daniel Pipes blog debunks the American Thinker article that quotes it, even though I've twice pointed out that it doesn't. The part is not equivalent to the whole. If you're going to continue to misrepresent my points after my repeated clarifications then you're the one arguing in bad faith, not me.
Are you having trouble with reading comprehension or something? I didn't say that Daniel Pipes blog debunks the American Thinker article. I said that Daniel Pipes debunks his own article and that it is dishonest to use quotes from an earlier unedited part of the article as a source.
Suppose that many years ago I wrote an article about Pluto. Then in 2006, I amend the article to point out that Pluto is now considered to be a dwarf planet and post something to that end at the top of my article. Can you not see that it now fundamentally dishonest to take a quote from the original article to claim that Pluto is a planet?
Yet that is exactly what the American Thinker article does. The article says this
But in France, there are 751 neighborhoods the French government believe they don't fully control.
and then uses this quote from the Daniel Pipes article to back it up.
They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.
What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not fully control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to twelve in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.
This is despite a big disclaimer at the top of the page which says
[Author's note: Please note that the update of Jan. 16, 2013 substantially changes my understanding of the ZUS.]
and the 2013 update which says
A couple of observations:
For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.
These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.
Having this first-hand experience, I regret having translated what the French government terms Zones Urbaines Sensibles as no-go zones. One can indeed "go" in them.
Can you really not see how using the earlier post to claim that the police can't go there is dishonest? Even Daniel Pipes is no longer asserting that the police don't go there. He's saying that he regrets claiming that they are no-go zones. He's saying that they are an area that can be prone to rioting but that most of the time you can walk around them quite safely. So they're just like the inner city of many large countries, like say Detroit then.
For someone to then take that article, ignore the 2013 update and use it to claim Daniel Pipes believes that there are no-go zones in France is enormously dishonest. It makes the entire American Thinker article very suspect as we've already caught them in one enormous case of dishonesty. I'm not misrepresenting your argument. I'm pointing out that your source has no validity at all. If you can't see that, I don't think there is much point in continuing this conversation because it is obvious that you are deliberately choosing to stay ignorant and then accusing me of bad faith so that you can ignore that even the original source of the American Thinker article wouldn't agree with the way his words have been used.
-
You continue to say that the Daniel Pipes blog debunks the American Thinker article that quotes it, even though I've twice pointed out that it doesn't. The part is not equivalent to the whole. If you're going to continue to misrepresent my points after my repeated clarifications then you're the one arguing in bad faith, not me.
Are you having trouble with reading comprehension or something? I didn't say that Daniel Pipes blog debunks the American Thinker article. I said that Daniel Pipes debunks his own article and that it is dishonest to use quotes from an earlier unedited part of the article as a source.
Good grief, man. Are you looking for hairs to split now? You said "That is an article written in 2015 containing details from the 2006 article by Daniel Pipes that you should know damn well were debunked by Daniel Pipes himself in 2013." Simplifying the sentence, "The article contains details that were debunked by Daniel Pipes". What I said was accurate.
Suppose that many years ago I wrote an article about Pluto. Then in 2006, I amend the article to point out that Pluto is now considered to be a dwarf planet and post something to that end at the top of my article. Can you not see that it now fundamentally dishonest to take a quote from the original article to claim that Pluto is a planet?
Suppose, however, that someone writes an article that describes Pluto as a dwarf planet and cites the first article. Now suppose a critic comes along and starts claiming that the second article incorrectly describes Pluto as a planet. Can you not see that this is exactly what you are doing? That's why I say that you are misrepresenting my points.
The article says this
But in France, there are 751 neighborhoods the French government believe they don't fully control.
and then uses this quote from the Daniel Pipes article to back it up.
They go by the euphemistic term Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, with the even more antiseptic acronym ZUS, and there are 751 of them as of last count. They are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.
What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not fully control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassonne to twelve in the heavily Muslim city of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.
This is despite a big disclaimer at the top of the page which says
[Author's note: Please note that the update of Jan. 16, 2013 substantially changes my understanding of the ZUS.]
and the 2013 update which says
A couple of observations:
For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe too, but there things look fine. The immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.
These are not full-fledged no-go zones but, as the French nomenclature accurately indicates, "sensitive urban zones." In normal times, they are unthreatening, routine places. But they do unpredictably erupt, with car burnings, attacks on representatives of the state (including police), and riots.
Having this first-hand experience, I regret having translated what the French government terms Zones Urbaines Sensibles as no-go zones. One can indeed "go" in them.
All of this is addressed by the sttatement in the American Thinker article that appears two sentences before the one you quoted, which says "For the record, there are no "official" no-go zones anywhere in Europe." I already pointed this out here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90925.msg1803615#msg1803615) and you are choosing to ignore it. That, again, is why I say you are misrepresenting my points.
Can you really not see how using the earlier post to claim that the police can't go there is dishonest? Even Daniel Pipes is no longer asserting that the police don't go there. He's saying that he regrets claiming that they are no-go zones. He's saying that they are an area that can be prone to rioting but that most of the time you can walk around them quite safely. So they're just like the inner city of many large countries, like say Detroit then.
You are, again, trying to paint this as a black-and-white issue where the police either can go or cannot go. You cite the fact that Daniel Pipes says the term "no-go" is inaccurate as the basis for your entire argument. The problem is that this ignores the entire rest of the webpage. Those experiences do not go away simply because the police can technically go into those zones. This is yet again why I say you are misrepresenting my points -- and not only mine, but those of Daniel Pipes as well.
When your entire argument rests on terminology, and completely ignores the actual situation on the ground, then you are merely playing at word games rather than trying to gain understanding.
-
No it really doesn't but I think it's worthless continuing this discussion with you.
-
Well, the integration is indeed even worse in US than what it is here. At least on Maryland and in New England from what I saw.
That breeze ruffling your hair?
It's the fact that you can't easily tell who immigrated from Ireland in 1860 by 1900.
-
That's what Daesh wants. Remember that their end times theology includes the belief that they will ultimately be defeated by an army led by the Anti-messiah, and beaten back into their heartland — only to be saved at the last moment by divine intervention.
And this right here exemplifies why I get pissed about the "what they want" / "what is strategically good for them" dichotomy. There is no divine intervention waiting for them.
-
That's what Daesh wants. Remember that their end times theology includes the belief that they will ultimately be defeated by an army led by the Anti-messiah, and beaten back into their heartland — only to be saved at the last moment by divine intervention.
And this right here exemplifies why I get pissed about the "what they want" / "what is strategically good for them" dichotomy. There is no divine intervention waiting for them.
And that is the power of extreme faith
-
For example, here is an argument connected to the real world: "Terrorism is driven by failures of economic opportunity."
This argument is obviously incomplete. But it can be engaged with using facts. You might say, "no, you can see that theology is important in converting economic inopportunity into terrorist action."
But you don't propose models of how the world works. Instead, you say, "There are too many immigrants in Europe. They are coming in too fast. This causes terrorism."
The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we agree here. What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation? It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
When told that the terrorism was not caused by immigrants, you say, "We need to stop immigration, so that terrorism will be reduced."
What is the percentage of attackers with muslim immigrant background among all those deadly terrorist attacks in western Europe in the last decade or two? Is it far more than their share of population? Yes or no? If yes, then it is caused by immigrants (from certain countries, that is).
When told that terrorism is often permitted by failures in already existing intelligence tracking, you say, "We need to do more about immigration."
Do you think there is any serious untapped potential in that area? I dont. Intelligence services are working pretty much the best they can, so unless you propose great increase in the surveillance state (a bad idea), this is not a realistic solution. I am not interested in unrealistic, pie in the sky solutions. It is not possible to monitor effectively for terrorists when you have millions of muslims in your country, even beginning to form parallel societes and their own enclaves.
When told that your policy is in line with Daesh demands, you say "It doesn't matter, they are not rational." Then you say "Daesh actually wants more immigration, so we should prevent immigration."
I am saying that I dont base my policy on Daesh demands, but on what I want to achieve. I am saying that yes, my solution is incidentally opposed to the Daesh demand of more muslims in Europe, but thats not why I chose it at all, my reasoning is different than the simplistic "do the opposite of what Daesh says".
You advocate a doctrine of spatial separation to lower terrorism. You say that Western presence in the Middle East is safe and not a risk, you say that it is safe as long as there are few Muslims in the West. When told that major attacks against the West were not plotted or primarily executed in the West, you say that...I don't know: you don't seem able to address this point. You probably go back to saying that Muslims are bad.
Western presence in the middle east can be a risk, and I am not fan of it too (tough it can also be a mitigating factor if conducted properly). But it is far below the risk posed by mass immigration. Unless we stop the latter, the former is pretty much not worth talking about.
My point is not about the severity of attacks, but more about the frequency and preventability. 9/11 once in a decade? Whatever, we cannot prevent that anyway (and YOU cannot too). Regular terrorist attacks, caused primarily by domestic terrorists, several times a year? We have a big problem, and one with an obvious solution that would at least stop it from growing.
Recent attacks in Paris were caused in large part by muslims living in Europe. Most attacks are this way and it is going to be dominant way of attacking us in the future. Because breeding ground for terrorism on European soil is the biggest security threat for us. Not what is happening 2000km away.
I dont know why it is so hard to understand for you that domestic islamic terrorism coming from European muslims is the largest threat to Europe, especially as their numbers increase over the long term. And this is the problem we should address. Western presence and activities in Middle East are secondary, not very important. I am not very interested in talking about that. You are mentally located in Middle East for some reason, always bringing up Daesh this and Daesh that, but I am talking about Europe here. Forget about Middle East. Move yourself mentally over to Europe, and answer the question "what is the best long term (decades and more) security strategy for European nations?" And the answer is obvious - strict immigration control and well secured borders. Spatial separation. And also doing our best to integrate muslims who are already legally here, before someone claims that I dont acknowledge that part, or that I want to deport them all.
Do that, and the worst that can ever happen to Europe are sporadic isolated terrorist attacks coming from abroad. No matter what happens in middle east!
Do the opposite, and security situation inside Europe will continue to deteriorate, with several islamist attacks every year, and in the long term it may very well end up resembling middle east itself, with persistent ethnic violence or even a civil war of our own. This is the worst case scenario.
-
Or, alternately:
Let's say one of the Paris attackers, or many of them, turn out to have arrived with groups of Syrian refugees.
Which option creates more terror attacks: turning away all Syrian refugees, or accepting and encamping Syrian refugees? Which option grants Daesh a larger strategic victory?
e: I feel that we should not let you slip away from the claim that demographic collapse doesn't harm economics, because it's, again, so out of touch with reality. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography) A Europe without immigrants is a Europe facing Japan's future.
Option one creates less terror attacks inside Europe in the long term. No matter what Daesh wants. Also, most of migrants arent even genuine refugees. Genuine Syrian refugees is not who I am most concerned about.
---
Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense. Shrinking economy? Oh, the horror. Until you realize that absolute economy size is irrelevant. What is important is GDP per capita. How much an average person produces. That is what truly determines the wealth and living standard of a nation. Now, fast demographic decrease does affect it negatively. But the effect is temporary and will never result in any truly serious economic trouble. It is self-correcting. Less GDP + less people = same thing. (just a sidenote, the converse is also true: More GDP + more people = same thing. Relevant for immigration.)
Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:
http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-musical-3.png
Truly, a country in economic collapse, yet getting wealthier over time. LOL! Must be a real paradox in your world.. Heck, the prediction shows them growing a little faster than Europe, even! Oh, the irony.
Europe would be wise to follow Japanese example. We should accept only those migrants who have better education than average Europeans, higher income than average Europeans, lower poverty rate than average European, lower crime rate than average European, and lower religous extremism and terrorism rate than average Europeans. This is how a really sensible migration policy looks like, one that improves instead of damages the destination country. And I am afraid it disqualifies most (but not all) muslims. Yet what Europe got instead is a million random MENA immigrants per year, coming inside at will. That is pure idiocy.
-
You are, again, trying to paint this as a black-and-white issue where the police either can go or cannot go.
Considering the article made that exact assertion in its title, describing it as a "no-go zones" which is not ambiguous in the slightest, either you linked to something you knew was deceptive from the first sentence if I believe your defense now, or you're rationalizing after the fact. There are no other conclusions available.
The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we agree here.
No, you really didn't; you just kind of slid on to yet another orthogonal point.
What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation?
None for the former, many for the latter, but when challenged to provide evidence you have once again slid orthogonally.
It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).
So your argument is that we can't change our own actions in the Middle East now.
...yeah, that's where we are. That's what you're reduced to.
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
Ignoring the fact that your solution has been repeatedly refuted as unworkable, considering many, if not most, of this sort of incident in the last five to ten years have been caused by people who live here then go there then come back.
Unless you're now proposing restriction of freedom of travel even for Westerners; a quarantine of Muslim-dominated countries. Which would admittedly be a novel argument from you, if even more utterly impractical and ridiculous.
What is the percentage of attackers with muslim immigrant background among all those deadly terrorist attacks in western Europe in the last decade or two? Is it far more than their share of population? Yes or no? If yes, then it is caused by immigrants (from certain countries, that is).
What is the percentage of these attacks by citizens vs. on visa? That should be far more illuminating. Indeed, if we're actually attempting to study the problem where were individual attackers educated and how, what was their role in the overall execution of the operation?
We already know at least two of the French attackers were French citizens, and the attack that was executed required knowledge of the city and the specific target locations that would be available most readily to an existing resident. We know from failed attempts at attacks in the United States that it's far easier to subvert a Caucasian citizen of the US than to smuggle in an Arabic terrorist since 9/11. How do you propose to prevent these problems? Deny visas to visit other countries? Shut down the internet so nobody can contact these people?
The world is a small one, smaller than you want it to be. A dozen people killed at a wedding in Iraq can be photographed and viewed in the privacy of your own home within ten minutes of the fact. Spatial seperation does not exist. Followers are everywhere in the world; it's a fundamental truth. Actors can be anywhere they want now; it's also a fundamental truth. Welcome to the Twitter age.
Do you think there is any serious untapped potential in that area? I dont.
It has already been established, in this thread, that there were failures to heed the existing warning signs. Turkey is on-record as having warned French intelligence about one of the attackers.
You're arguing there's no more data to be mined. That's possibly true. It is painfully clear, however, that the analysis and follow-up side of the house can make improvements.
The rest of your statement is utterly disconnected from reality in light of the fact that the information was actually out there, ready to be used, if anyone had connected the dots and judged them important.
I am saying that I dont base my policy on Daesh demands, but on what I want to achieve. I am saying that yes, my solution is incidentally opposed to the Daesh demand of more muslims in Europe, but thats not why I chose it at all, my reasoning is different than the simplistic "do the opposite of what Daesh says".
You have yet to produce evidence this a demand Daesh makes, and considering that any idiot can find Daesh talking about what they want (christ, I'm the only guy who actually posted a real Daesh publication here, and you want to lecture me about what Daesh wants?) this shouldn't be hard for you.
You are once again attempting to slide your goalposts away from Battuta's discussion of the facts rather than address them.
Western presence in the middle east can be a risk, and I am not fan of it too (tough it can also be a mitigating factor if conducted properly). But it is far below the risk posed by mass immigration. Unless we stop the latter, the former is pretty much not worth talking about.
See previous posts re: citizenship, residence, who's actually recruited to plan and lead attacks.
My point is not about the severity of attacks, but more about the frequency and preventability. 9/11 once in a decade? Whatever, we cannot prevent that anyway (and YOU cannot too). Regular terrorist attacks, caused primarily by domestic terrorists, several times a year? We have a big problem, and one with an obvious solution that would at least stop it from growing.
Here, you seem to brush against the truth you're so eager to avoid: the terrorists are domestic. But they're also immigrants. But they're also flying robot unicorns, at this point, for all the consistency you can seem to manage.
Recent attacks in Paris were caused in large part by muslims living in Europe.
Which isn't the same as immigrants. Muslim is a religion, not an immigration status.
-
Here, you seem to brush against the truth you're so eager to avoid: the terrorists are domestic. But they're also immigrants. But they're also flying robot unicorns, at this point, for all the consistency you can seem to manage.
Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.
And the fact that European citizens seem to commit islamist attacks only further underlines my point that their integration has failed. Utterly failed (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion).
When you are ignoring the immigrant and muslim connection, then you are ignoring reality. Muslim populations dont just appear out of thin air in Europe.
-
So your argument is that we can't change our own actions in the Middle East now.
...yeah, that's where we are. That's what you're reduced to.
I said you will not be able to solve poverty and integration problems of muslims in Europe, because it is very hard if not impossible to change. How you arrived on that ridiculous interpretation of what I said is beyond my understanding. Please learn to read with comprehension. And leave the Middle East, talk about Europe.
-
What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change...
Tell that to the IRA.
Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.
And then 9/11 happened. You do know that the people who carried out 9/11 entered the US with tourist visas, yes? Almost as though you don't need to be a legal immigrant to carry out terrorist attacks on a country.
You keep on making grand assertions that are trivially disproven by looking at history. Maybe you should do what Battuta suggested and actually get informed about this topic before you talk about it.
-
Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense. Shrinking economy? Oh, the horror. Until you realize that economy size is irrelevant. What is important is GDP per capita. How much an average person produces. That is what truly determines the wealth and living standard of a nation. Now, fast demographic decrease does affect it negatively. But the effect is temporary and will never result in any truly serious economic trouble. It is self-correcting. Less GDP + less people = same thing.
Well, you're pretty much wrong on that count.
Japan, the article posits, is heading for a really bad demographic crisis unless massive amounts of immigrants are taken in.
Japan's population began falling in 2004 and is now ageing faster than any other on the planet. More than 22% of Japanese are already 65 or older. A report compiled with the government’s co-operation two years ago warned that by 2060 the number of Japanese will have fallen from 127m to about 87m, of whom almost 40% will be 65 or older.
The government is pointedly not denying newspaper reports that ran earlier this month, claiming that it is considering a solution it has so far shunned: mass immigration. The reports say the figure being mooted is 200,000 foreigners a year. An advisory body to Shinzo Abe, the prime minister, said opening the immigration drawbridge to that number would help stabilise Japan’s population—at around 100m (from its current 126.7m).
87 Million people. 34.8 Million of which at retirement age. There is no way a modern society, with all the social safety nets that entails, can function under these circumstances, no matter how productive each working-age member of that society is (That your theory is based around having no upper bound for individual productivity is a major flaw in it). Oh, but that's not all: Those 87 Million people? That's an optimistic assumption, based on an assumed fertility rate of 2.07 (current is 1.39) and as per above, a yearly influx of 200000 immigrants. If fertility rates cannot increase to that level, an estimated 650000 immigrants would have to be accepted per year to get even to that very bad looking 87 Million, 40% retirement age state.
Japan's economy, by the way, is crippled by debt. The state budget is at 812 billion USD, 255 billion of which are allocated to social security spending (reference (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/us-japan-economy-budget-idUSKBN0KN01R20150114)). The relative portion of the state budget that goes into welfare will only go up as the percentage of people in retirement increases.
Bottom line: Japan cannot continue as it is right now. It has to change, it has to invite foreigners to come and stay in the country, it has to create massive incentives for people to have more children, or else it will be unable to keep its standard of living. This situation, to a far lesser extent, is also happening in other first-world countries. Accepting immigration is the key to keep a society vital, if you shut your borders to all but a trickle of people you deem acceptable, you better have a plan to deal with an unbalanced age pyramid.
Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:
http://www.newgeography.com/files/cox-musical-3.png
Truly, a country in economic collapse, yet getting wealthier over time. LOL! Must be a real paradox in your world..
Dude. Have you looket at that projection? It only extends to 2018. We're looking at a crisis in 2050 to 2060. You are looking at the wrong timeframe here.
Europe would be wise to follow Japanese example. We should accept only those migrants who have better education than average Europeans, higher income than average Europeans, lower poverty rate than average European, lower crime rate than average European, and lower religous extremism and terrorism rate than average Europeans. This is how a really sensible migration policy looks like. And I am afraid it disqualifies most (but not all) muslims. Yet what Europe got instead is a million random Arabs per year, coming inside at will. That is pure idiocy.
For ****'s sake, maslo, learn some economics. A society needs people on all strata, and that means it also needs the unskilled and uneducated. Because we can then train them to become skilled in the areas where we need them to be. If you only accept "high quality" immigrants, all those whining about them dirty foreigners stealing our jobs will suddenly have a point. Immigrants, as bad as that may sound, are more willing to fill out the **** jobs the natives do not want to do.
Japan is not a role model. It's a cautionary tale.
-
Your article about Japan is behind registration, I cannot read it. But I bet it is sensationalist nonsense.
[...]
Instead of sensationalist articles, look at Japanese economic performance itself:
So you condemn an article you can't read as sensationalist because you assume it disagrees with your preconceptions.
Wow. That's actually impressive.
-
Japan is probably going to end up being a really interesting experiment because if there is one thing I have gained from 15 years of watching anime is that they will never accept foreigners defiling the glorious land of the sun. so you might say they have to, that they have no choice, but I don't think they are going to. they are going to build a robot slave army before they let gaijin take their land.
-
What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change...
Tell that to the IRA.
Of course they are both. They are often citizens, but citizens who immigrated or children of immigrants. Notice that I said "with muslim immigrant background", not strictly first generation immigrants. Almost all islamist terrorist attacks can be traced back to immigration. These attacks would not happen if not for open border policies of the last few decades.
And then 9/11 happened. You do know that the people who carried out 9/11 entered the US with tourist visas, yes? Almost as though you don't need to be a legal immigrant to carry out terrorist attacks on a country.
You keep on making grand assertions that are trivially disproven by looking at history. Maybe you should do what Battuta suggested and actually get informed about this topic before you talk about it.
For every IRA you find, I can point at many other insurrections that didnt end up that nicely. Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out, that Europe will end up with Irelands, and not Kosovos or Dagestans, with IRAs and not Boko Harams? For every example of integrated minority, such as Italians or Irish in the US, I can point out problematic minority, such as Roma in Eastern Europe or black people in the US. Are you willing to bet your country that today's muslim immigrants will end up as the former and not the latter? Its your choice, but leave us out of it please. The Communism experiment caused more than enough damage to our countries, we will leave the Mass Immigration experiment to you. If the results will look favorable after 50 years, perhaps we will join ;) (they dont look very favorable now, thats for sure).
And yes, you dont need to be an immigrant to carry out a terrorist attack, tourists can do it too. Its just that in practice, ovewhelming majority of islamist attackers in Europe were of immigrant background, not tourists. Pointing out outliers does not invalidate general trends, and this applies to every statistical claim I have made ITT so far.
-
For every IRA you find, I can point at many other insurrections that didnt end up that nicely. Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out, that Europe will end up with Irelands, and not Kosovos or Dagestans, with IRAs and not Boko Harams? For every example of integrated minority, such as Italians or Irish in the US, I can point out problematic minority, such as Roma in Eastern Europe or black people in the US. Are you willing to bet your country that today's muslim immigrants will end up as the former and not the latter? Its your choice, but leave us out of it please. The Communism experiment caused more than enough damage to our countries, we will leave the Mass Immigration experiment to you. If the results will look favorable after 50 years, perhaps we will join ;) (they dont look very favorable now, thats for sure).
Maybe the reason the Troubles ended as smoothly as they did is because of the way the UK government responded to the IRA. Maybe the reason the Irish integrated so well in the US is, again, the way the US government handled the situation?
You bring up successful integrations and then promptly dismiss them as outliers rather than look at why they were successful, presumably because it doesn't mesh with the narrative you've built in your head. Or because you're racist and assume that because they're brown, Arabs are less capable of integrating than ~racially superior~ white people. One of those two.
Also I look forward to Battuta schooling you over why black people are a "problematic minority", especially because the reality doesn't favor your side of the argument even slightly. I'd do it myself, but he's far better equipped to.
And yes, you dont need to be an immigrant to carry out a terrorist attack, tourists can do it too. Its just that in practice, ovewhelming majority of islamist attackers in Europe were of immigrant background, not tourists. Pointing out outliers does not invalidate general trends, and this applies to every statistical claim I have made ITT so far.
You haven't made any statistical claims. You're provided gut feelings. Your suggested course of action is based on what you think feels best. It's aimed at making you feel safer, rather than actually adressing the issues that lead to terrorism. It's why, when confronted by facts, you shrivel up and return to your talking points, even though those points were disproved a while ago. Your position isn't based on facts, it's based on feelings.
You lost this argument over and over again but you're too ignorant to realize it.
-
You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?
As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis) is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.
By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.
-
Are you willing to bet your country that islamic extremism will fizzle out
The IRA didn't fizzle out.
In fact, they were in many ways the best, certainly the smartest, terrorist group in the world. They understood the game they were playing intimately, what the rules and the do-not-cross lines were, far better than al-Qaeda or Daesh ever have. They were smart enough to see that things were changing, that they were getting more dangerous and that as the age of the cell phone commenced they were going to be in trouble in a few years. So they made their peace while they still had a chance, rather than dying of the Facebook Age amid a horde of pictures of dead Irish cops who didn't look so different from them. Other groups haven't been that smart; the fate of the FARC, or the Tamil Tigers, are instructive.
Terrorism is about optics. It's not some kind of military struggle. It's purely propagandistic, about making people feel unsafe, and about making them do stupid things to make themselves feel safe.
It's not about the big targets. The big targets hurt you more than they help you. 9/11 was ruinous in the short-term to al-Qaeda for money and recruits, and would have probably stayed so if not for the invasion of Iraq. The IRA took a serious hit on recruitment and fundraising when they killed Louis Mountbatten. They learned from it, too: the Royals and their close associates were placed off-limits, because doing something big, killing someone that everyone recognized, had hurt them. Hezbollah or Hamas are not going to stage an attack on the Wailing Wall because it'd be incredibly bad for them. The results of this attack in Paris are going to cause the Islamic State problems too, unless of course we do what you ask and hand them the kind of optics they so desperately desire.
-
You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?
As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis) is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.
By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.
What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again. :p
-
Jews are a model minority, they are actually more succesful than the natives, so thats why this argument does not work for them. The same is not true for muslims. They do bring racial, ethnic and religious tensions with them if they mass immigrate. So they are not welcome here.
And it is not like Europe is the only safe place remaining for refugees. Refugees should seek asylum in first safe area. The reason they are going through 5 safe countries into Germany or Sweden is simple - $$$. They arent even refugees, they are just migrants at that point. We should take care of refugees inside middle east, by increasing foreign aid, building refugee camps and securing at least some safe areas they could flee to. Not only would this enable us to help those who really need it instead of opportunists, it would also be better from a security standpoint.
-
You know what this whole "we mustn't take in so many refugees" argument reminds me of?
Back in 1938, before the Holocaust was in full swing, Jews and others were fleeing Germany en masse. Unfortunately for them, countries all around the world refused them entry. A lot of the comments back then mirror the arguments maslo makes here. For example, the Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". Sound familiar?
As a result, Jews had nowhere to turn to. The story of the MS St. Louis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis) is emblematic of this: Since the refugees couldn't find safety away from the Reich's reach, they were put in danger. Of the nearly 1000 passengers on board, only 400 were able to get to safety, 600 were returned to continental Europe, where 250 of them died.
By closing the avenues refugees take, we become complicit in their fate. This is not a price I am willing to pay.
What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again. :p
Except a few wars with every neighbour, internal terrorist attacks and still unsolved cultural conflict ;)
Besides.
Some Europeans say that they don't want immigrants. Everyone is going mad. Israel is not going to take anybody, despite being closest neighbour. No one cares or dares to criticize. Funny, huh?
http://www.newsweek.com/israel-starts-building-jordan-border-fence-one-month-early-369528
So. When Israel is building a wall for better border protection, it's all fine. But when Orban decided to set up a fence because Hungarian Border Security couldn't handle the situation, then EU officials got an enourmous bu**hurt.
-
Jews are a model minority, they are actually more succesful than the natives, so thats why this argument does not work for them. The same is not true for muslims. They do bring racial, ethnic and religious tensions with them if they mass immigrate. So they are not welcome here.
Stop right there. Back in 1938, Jews were denied entry based on the racial, ethnic and religious tensions they were assumed to bring into a country. So they were not welcome in the US, the UK, or other countries around the world.
This is no different from the arguments you're trying to make.
And it is not like Europe is the only safe place remaining for refugees. Refugees should seek asylum in first safe area. The reason they are going through 5 safe countries into Germany or Sweden is simple - $$$. We should take care of refugees inside middle east, by increasing foreign aid, building refugee camps and securing at least some safe areas they could flee to. Not only would this enable us to help those who really need it instead of opportunists, it would also be better from a security standpoint.
Have you, I dunno, actually looked at the statistics? Most of them did stop at the first available places, like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the UAE. Germany is the only EU country that has taken in more than 100000 refugees.
-
I don't think it's worth engaging with 666maslo666 anymore. Having made it clear he knows nothing about the topic, he's now showing us that his position is actually based on racism.
What are you talking about E? We sent large numbers of them to a part of the Middle East and as a result that area never caused any problems ever again. :p
Except a few wars with every neighbour, internal terrorist attacks and still unsolved cultural conflict ;)
Besides.
-
You haven't made any statistical claims. You're provided gut feelings.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2000&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all®ion=8&charttype=line&chart=regions&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table
List of 20 deadliest terrorist attacks in western Europe from 2000 to 2014. 10 of them are confirmed islamist attacks (located mostly at the top of the list). Now, do muslims make up 50% of population of western Europe? If a group that makes up less than 5% of your population is responsible for 50% of most deadly terrorist attacks, would you call that "gut feeling", or "strong overrepresentation"? You might not like this fact, but statistics are on my side (and there isnt even 2015 added in there yet...).
-
You haven't made any statistical claims. You're provided gut feelings.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2000&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all®ion=8&charttype=line&chart=regions&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table
List of 20 deadliest terrorist attacks in western Europe from 2000 to 2014. 10 of them are confirmed islamist attacks (located mostly at the top of the list). Now, do muslims make up 50% of population of western Europe? If a group that makes up less than 5% of your population is responsible for 50% of most deadly terrorist attacks, would you call that "gut feeling", or "strong overrepresentation"? You might not like this fact, but statistics are on my side.
And this of course has nothing to do with the fact that extremist groups, motivated by western involvement in the Middle-East, exploit Middle-Eastern strife to motivate people to strike at those Western countries involved in the Middle-East.
No, that's not it. It's because Arabs and Muslims are just terrorists by nature. Of course! That's why it'll totally go away if we stop immigration!
Seriously, this argument you're making has been debunked numerous times in the last few pages, but you continue to do what I said you do in the paragraph you quoted. This is like talking to a Young-Earth Creationist. You believe the arguments against your position are invalid because you are unable or unwilling to understand them.
-
Stop right there. Back in 1938, Jews were denied entry based on the racial, ethnic and religious tensions they were assumed to bring into a country. So they were not welcome in the US, the UK, or other countries around the world.
This is no different from the arguments you're trying to make.
Again, the difference is, sometimes it is true. History is littered with examples of various migrant influxes, some of which assimilated very well into mainstream society, and some of which did not and are a problem to this day, or even displaced the natives. It is important to determine which category current mass immigration of muslims into Europe belongs to, and act accordingly. And so far it looks like they are going to be the second category (and no, I dont give a damn why, the mere fact that it is so is enough). It is thus not rational at all for us to open our borders for them. I dunno, maybe if in a hundred years it turns out I was wrong, and all those muslims in Western Europe have assimilated really well, then we can revise this policy. But not a second sooner.
Have you, I dunno, actually looked at the statistics? Most of them did stop at the first available places, like Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq or the UAE. Germany is the only EU country that has taken in more than 100000 refugees.
I am well aware of that. Then what is that million of random migrants (and counting) doing inside Europe? They should be over there, too. Unless they are actually running for economic reasons and opportunities, not running from war... which they mostly are.
-
You haven't made any statistical claims. You're provided gut feelings.
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=b&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=2000&end_yearonly=2014&dtp2=all®ion=8&charttype=line&chart=regions&expanded=no&ob=TotalNumberOfFatalities&od=desc#results-table
List of 20 deadliest terrorist attacks in western Europe from 2000 to 2014. 10 of them are confirmed islamist attacks (located mostly at the top of the list). Now, do muslims make up 50% of population of western Europe? If a group that makes up less than 5% of your population is responsible for 50% of most deadly terrorist attacks, would you call that "gut feeling", or "strong overrepresentation"? You might not like this fact, but statistics are on my side.
And this of course has nothing to do with the fact that extremist groups, motivated by western involvement in the Middle-East, exploit Middle-Eastern strife to motivate people to strike at those Western countries involved in the Middle-East.
No, that's not it. It's because Arabs and Muslims are just terrorists by nature. Of course! That's why it'll totally go away if we stop immigration!
Seriously, this argument you're making has been debunked numerous times in the last few pages, but you continue to do what I said you do in the paragraph you quoted. This is like talking to a Young-Earth Creationist. You believe the arguments against your position are invalid because you are unable or unwilling to understand them.
Since you will probably again ignore the point I am making and proceed with the strawmen, I will copy my earlier post here:
The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we all agree here. What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation? It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
The causes are irrelevant for the point I am trying to make. Hell, what you said is the cause (the western involvement, not the "terrorists by nature", before someone misunderstands me), while I dont think its the only factor, definitely contributes to the causation. Does not change my point at all.
-
If I had to flee, I too would try to reach a place where I could make a better living for myself or my family.
-
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
You've been told repeatedly why it won't work and you've refused to address that point on numerous occasions. Let me put it this way. How can you prove that having a radicalised 0.01% of the population of a Western country is safer than having a 1% radicalised population of a nearby Middle Eastern country?
Yeah, I pulled those numbers out of my arse, but you've already claimed that correlation is enough so let's go with it.
-
An interesting video by the BBC:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/did-paris-attacker-pose-as-a-refugee/vi-BBn6u2X?ocid=U219DHP
-
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
You've been told repeatedly why it won't work and you've refused to address that point on numerous occasions. Let me put it this way. How can you prove that having a radicalised 0.01% of the population of a Western country is safer than having a 1% radicalised population of a nearby Middle Eastern country?
It is evidenced by the fact that by far the most islamist attacks in Europe are commited by people of immigrant origin living in a western country (first, second generation..), hence the first category in your question, not "terrorist tourists" - the second category (of which an example is 9/11). There isnt any nice chart outlining that, but you can google all the attacks in the top 20 attacks list posted earlier, or google all the notorious attacks we had this year (Charlie Hebdo, Lee Rugby, Danish Blasphemy conference, Paris attacks..) and see that all of them have perpetrators which were in the first category, not the second. In light of this, its reasonable to say that the first category is far more dangerous to Europe, probably by the virtue of its closeness. Spatial separation is a very effective defense. Converse is also true, spatial closeness is a pretty big threat.
And just because I can, lets post real numbers of extremists, instead of those pulled out of arse. Prevalence of extremism in muslim countries (https://i.imgur.com/CYX54f8.png). Prevalence of extremism among muslim immigrants in a western country (http://i.imgur.com/hF9IrDA.jpg). Source 1 (http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), Source 2 (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion). Multiply the statistics by the proportion of muslims in the population of the given country, to get the proportion of extremists (not terrorists mind you, only a fraction of extremists becomes actual terrorists).
-
Since you will probably again ignore the point I am making and proceed with the strawmen, I will copy my earlier post here:
The causes are not debated. I acknowledged long ago ITT that the causes of terrorism (extremism in general) are many - poverty, culture, religion, ideology, perceived oppression.. It is pointless to debate, because we all agree here. What you seem to have missed is that I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change - how many times have I said ITT that "we do not have a magic wand to solve poverty", or that I am skeptical of cultural assimilation? It does not matter what the ultimate cause is, if you cant change it, if it does not point to a practical solution, its irrelevant for our purposes (solving the problem, not just writing long tractats about it).
My solution (minimizing the % of population that is strongly correlated with the unwanted phenomenon) will certainly work no matter the causes, because its not based on causation at all - the correlation is enough for it to work.
The causes are irrelevant for the point I am trying to make. Hell, what you said is the cause (the western involvement, not the "terrorists by nature", before someone misunderstands me), while I dont think its the only factor, definitely contributes to the causation. Does not change my point at all.
And thank you for proving my point. You're now literally quoting your old posts even though they've been torn apart.
I am saying these factors are all very hard, if not practically impossible to change
You're saying that, and you're utterly wrong. Again, IRA. Seriously. Are you really this dense? The IRA didn't fizzle out. The Troubles ended because the UK government took meaningful steps to change the situation in Northern Ireland. The environment was changed in such a way that terrorism was no longer necessary. Perceived oppression is absolutely something that can be changed.
You will not stop extremism by trying to keep it "over there". Spatial separation will help you when the most successful terrorist attack in history was carried out by people who were not immigrants. This is not a problem you can solve by shutting down borders to immigration. You cannot force desperate people to return to a place where they have no future and expect them to simply take it lying down. There's a hundred years of history that can attest to these facts. The fact is that the people who move to the West are a lot less likely to join IS than they would be if you sent them back. Your proposal is to treat all Muslims like extremists, and all it'll accomplish is that it'll make more extremists. You will strengthen IS. Again, this is supported by historical fact. If you disagree, YOU. ARE. WRONG. Reality will not bend to your inability to understand it.
But hey, at least you'll ~feel~ safer, right? Gotta keep those brown people away.
In light of this, its reasonable to say that the first category is far more dangerous to Europe, probably by the virtue of its closeness.
No it isn't. You have no data that says the situation would be better if the borders were closed and IS had more support (which they would). You're just assuming it would be in spite of historical evidence because it's nice and simple and would make you feel safe from all those scary brown people.
And no, like I said above, spatial separation will not help you.
-
Just a nitpick, Aesaar, maybe wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War) has failed me, but aren't most Syrian refugees rather white?
-
nope they're muslum and the muslim race is a synonym for brown people. you convert and then your skin changes color.
-
The IRA didn't fizzle out. The Troubles ended because the UK government took meaningful steps to change the situation in Northern Ireland. The environment was changed in such a way that terrorism was no longer necessary. Perceived oppression is absolutely something that can be changed.
If you think changing the present situation in practice would be so simple as in that case, I have a bridge to sell you. The divide between western civilization and the islamic civilization is far greater than the divide between irish catholics and protestants. Good luck in trying if you want, but I am not betting the future of my country on that slim chance of such an endeavour succeeding. You might as well try to fix the Israel vs. Palestine problem while trying to keep them in the same state.. Futile.
You will not stop extremism by trying to keep it "over there". Spatial separation will help you when the most successful terrorist attack in history was carried out by people who were not immigrants. This is not a problem you can solve by shutting down borders to immigration.
You keep bringing in that one old outlier, in face of all the evidence that spatial separation is actually a good defense to a typical islamist attack, which is commited by people with immigrant origins living in the western country, not "tourists". Why hasnt there been any islamist attack in eastern Europe so far?
You have no data that says the situation would be better if the borders were closed and IS had more support (which they would).
Are you really implying that if we closed borders, the number of terrorist "tourists" from IS would suddenly magically increase so much that it would drawf the domestic terrorists, despite the fact that the complete opposite is true now, the domestic terrorists drarf the "tourists" from IS? This is a completely unreasonable assumption, based on nothing at all. It makes no sense. At least I have provided examples and numbers to back up my position. You are just claiming you are right, with no evidence presented.
The fact is that the people who move to the West are a lot less likely to join IS than they would be if you sent them back.
Perhaps they will be a bit more likely to join IS, but they wont pose much of a threat to us if they are in the middle east, will they? IS does not have ICBMs and threat posed by "terrorist tourists" from the middle east is pretty miniscule compared to homegrown terrorism. I am not afraid of IS, they are pretty much doomed now. Homegrown terrorism is the primary threat, one we need to tackle (at least stop from increasing).
-
If I had to flee, I too would try to reach a place where I could make a better living for myself or my family.
Yeah, but then you are an economic migrant, not a refugee, and should be treated as such. Just because there is a war in my country does not mean I get to travel all around the world at will, even violating legal borders. Refugees are supposed to seek asylum in first safe country. Not fifth safe one. That is country shopping.
-
Well yeah but the problem that's causing in Europe is that it puts a disproportionate burden on the countries that are easiest to reach from the Middle East, and they're not happy about it.
-
If I had to flee, I too would try to reach a place where I could make a better living for myself or my family.
Yeah, but then you are an economic migrant, not a refugee, and should be treated as such. Just because there is a war in my country does not mean I get to travel all around the world at will, even violating legal borders. Refugees are supposed to seek asylum in first safe country. Not fifth safe one. That is country shopping.
Read my post again. I said "flee", not "emigrate". There's a difference between the two.
-
Speaking of ISIS doomed:
The Bear got pissed as well. Long range bombers joined the party. That's one for a liner jet bombed.
https://www.rt.com/news/322436-russia-strikes-syria-putin/
<I usually avoid "Russia Today" as a source but that was a simple message>
I'm very curious about the changes in French narration on the Syrian issue in the nearest future. They were one of the strongest voices calling for toppling Assad but now it looks like they will make some adjustments.
-
Well, I've said before I hold the Left-leaning government for mishandling the entire PR situation with the refugees in a stupid and faux manner. Take for example Germany censoring material on Facebook about the migrant crisis.
They like to paint it pretty and that everyone can get along, but what exactly is happening IS people not getting along. Governments should be working more on opening a dialogue between the citizens, refugees, and why the hell they're there. Instead, we see fingers pointed, right wingers screaming, and Lefties boldly assert that we have to accept them without question (and my stance is that it's not a question of shame, but confusion and lot of pent up frustration on both sides) and my blunt assertion is that it seems blame, along with the refugees are being shoveled around. And as for Sweden? They got some serious problems, it's a nation that bent over backwards to fulfill its own politically correct agenda, so they get to deal with the aftermath when those "lofty" policies and quotas based on fluff meat reality.
With any migrant population, there will be elements that are unacceptable, and with different cultures, bumps kinks, and **** will happen. Heck, I live in the American Southwest, and the reality of migrants and illegal immigration is quite different than what the media tells us. Quite frankly, despite Trump's bluster, no one is in a hurry here to shoot each other except idiots.
The migrants and immigration is a problem, but I still chuckle that the Euro governments routinely lie, censor, and encourage little white lies to their populations about it - and perhaps themselves. What I'm saying is it's time to stop dreaming and actually high-time to fix things. One thing is to bring stability back to Syria and extension, the rest of the Middle East. As long as that region remains volatile, you'll get terrorists and waves of refugees and migrants.
-
Phantom Hoover, thats true, and it is an issue that should be solved by a combination of generous foreign aid (because foreign aid going directly to refugee camps is one of the most effective ways of helping refugees), and maybe some refugee redistribution. But this redistribution should be done in an organized manner by taking genuine refugees directly from middle eastern refugee camps (UK does it this way AFAIK), and it should be on the sovereignty of individual countries (no forced quotas) and also it should be clear that we are doing it out of the goodness of our hearts, not because we have to.
What we have instead is this mad rush of everyone from middle east and north africa running or swimming into Germany and Sweden with nobody stopping them or regulating it (except for Hungary maybe). That is insanity. There must be radical change.
-
Bear, Backfire and Blackjack..... beautiful planes with an ugly mission
-
You keep bringing in that one old outlier, in face of all the evidence that spatial separation is actually a good defense to a typical islamist attack, which is commited by people with immigrant origins living in the western country, not "tourists". Why hasnt there been any islamist attack in eastern Europe so far?
"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation. I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications. It's important, and it's very pertinent. Deal with it.
And there have been attacks in eastern Europe. Or do you not consider Russia as part of Europe?
Outside of Russia, I'd say it can be chalked up to the rather trivial involvement of eastern European countries in Middle-Eastern affairs, which is in rather stark contrast to France and the UK. In short: Eastern Europeans countries that aren't Russia make relatively poor targets because they're not important enough (in this context).
Are you really implying that if we closed borders, the number of terrorist "tourists" from IS would suddenly magically increase so much that it would drawf the domestic terrorists, despite the fact that the complete opposite is true now, the domestic terrorists drarf the "tourists" from IS? This is a completely unreasonable assumption, based on nothing at all. It makes no sense. At least I have provided examples and numbers to back up my position. You are just claiming you are right, with no evidence presented.
I'm saying that the number of extremists you create by sending refugees back to IS is going to more than make up for the few terrorists you send back with them. You'll feel safer, but you won't be.
And I, and the people who agree with me, have been backing our statements with actual historical facts, because big surprise, some of us have actual formal education on this subject, which you plainly do not. The only evidence you've cited are two studies that don't actually agree with your point. So no, you haven't presented examples to support your position, you've cited data you've misinterpreted. All the **** you've spouted has been handily and comprehensively addressed and dismissed by everyone who's engaged with you. Which is why you keep going back to the same talking points.
Formulating a new argument would require you to consider the notion that you might be wrong, and you're not able to do that.
Perhaps they will be a bit more likely to join IS, but they wont pose much of a threat to us if they are in the middle east, will they? IS does not have ICBMs and threat posed by "terrorist tourists" from the middle east is pretty miniscule compared to homegrown terrorism. I am not afraid of IS, they are pretty much doomed now. Homegrown terrorism is the primary threat, one we need to tackle (at least stop from increasing).
Yes they will still be a threat. If they can't enter as immigrants, they'll enter as tourists. Sure, they prefer to enter as immigrants because it's got advantages, but they'll make do with tourist visas, and since you've so cheerfully sent them more recruits, there'll be more of them, and IS itself will have gained more support at home as well. Our world is too interconnected for something as trivial as distance to be an obstacle.
Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting. Your way of thinking is a boon to terrorism. You are helping them.
-
Aesaar, you realize you are pushing him and silent third parties further way from your position with the assertions of racism and the "Deal with it", right?
feel free to do so, but I just want to make sure you are considering that.
-
People have tried to be reasonable for most of the thread. It's had no effect. The discussion is pointless because he's unable or unwilling to consider that his world view is flawed. I realized a long time ago that I wasn't going to convince him.
And I'll absolutely call bull**** on any insinuation that 9/11 is not relevant to a discussion about terrorism. Because it's ****ing bull****.
-
Aesaar, you realize you are pushing him and silent third parties further way from your position with the assertions of racism and the "Deal with it", right?
feel free to do so, but I just want to make sure you are considering that.
If silent third parties change their position based on who's using harsh words or memespeak instead of actual value in their arguments then one really shouldn't care if they're pushing them away.
Besides, why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway? There's no audience to award points and declare a winner, this isn't a televised debate.
-
"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation. I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications. It's important, and it's very pertinent. Deal with it.
I can easily dismiss it simply on the fact that it happened in the US, and we are talking about the security situation in Europe, you know?
Implications of 9/11 are not making your case much better, quite the opposite. No event like that has happened since then, despite strong and bloody involvement of the west in the middle east afterwards. We can thus conclude that such big successful attacks by "tourist terrorists with visas" are very rare, even if we strongly provoke them muslims with plentiful bombardment of their countries - something which is a much bigger provocation than simply restricting immigration. If middle eastern muslims didnt go crazy and started joining Al-Quaeda in droves and causing havoc all over Europe after we destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, why should I think something like that would happen if we simply closed borders?
I'm saying that the number of extremists you create by sending refugees back to IS is going to more than make up for the few terrorists you send back with them.
Just to get this over with, I never said we should send refugees, or anyone "back to IS", such a thing would be crazy. We should send them into well protected and well funded refugee camps outside Europe. Deporting economic migrants also means they wont end up in any warzone (they wouldnt be economic migrants if they would). I dont think such a policy would create a lot of islamic extremism in the middle east. You certainly cannot claim that it would lead to more extremism and resulting "terrorist tourists" than the Afghanistan and Iraq bloodbath. If that didnt create a serious threat of tourist terrorists, I dont think what I am proposing will.
Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting.
ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).
-
Meanwhile, all identified terrorists were confirmed to be European nationals on paper, with immigrant backgrounds. Surely they should have integrated by 2 or 3 generation? So much for that notion, lol. As I said, people living inside Europe are the real security threat here, not those far away in middle east.
These attacks are the fruits of creating extremist breeding grounds right inside Europe by open borders policies of the past. Breeding grounds that were again enlarged by a million people this year.
-
People have tried to be reasonable for most of the thread.
I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.
The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666. :doubt:
-
Yours is a short-term and ineffective solution that will ensure the longevity of IS and other extremist factions, because you're exactly the kind of person they claim to be fighting.
ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).
I have to disagree here. Even if Assad alongside with Putin, French and other ISIS enemies will crush them in Syria and Iraq it will not be game over. ISIS is not only an organization, land, weapons, terrorists etc. It's an ideal which will prevail in brainwashed minds. If they loose what did they fight for <the Caliphate state of their own> they will go for vengeance. Destroying IS in the Middle East will be half of a victory. The ultimate victory will appear when we will manage to wipe out ISIS from every human being's mind.
-
Yeah, I agree, while IS as an entity in Syria and Iraq will probably not last long, the idea of Caliphate, an Islamic State in a more general sense, is deeply ingrained in the minds of islamists and will probably resurface again and again some time in the future. Its hard to kill an idea..
-
The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666. :doubt:
And the award for remaining reasonable ought to go to everyone opposing 666maslo666, since he very clearly left reason at the door.
-
Besides, why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?
I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.
The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666. :doubt:
"why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?"
because they are the vast majority of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)). You might not change the mind of the one person you are arguing with but you can change the minds of the 99 other people who are watching and not contributing. As of this second there are two registered users and twenty guests.
-
"why would anyone care about those mysterious 'silent third parties' anyway?"
because they are the vast majority of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)). You might not change the mind of the one person you are arguing with but you can change the minds of the 99 other people who are watching and not contributing. As of this second there are two registered users and twenty guests.
That might be true if there was any real draw for outsiders or people who don't have an account to read off-topic boards, especially threads about recent events that they could get in a thousand other places on the net. The 90% in this case are the people who enjoy FSO or battletech(or whatever else is hosted here) and come to HLP for something they can pretty much only find on HLP.
This thread has a 9 to 1 view-reply ratio, and I'd bet a lot of that comes from people checking their recent unreads and this topping it every time. Compare that to things like the WiH discussion thread(75:1) or any thread about some new test build which often exceed 50:1.
Besides, even if those lurkers are here they don't matter, they'll never give you satisfactory feedback and internet arguments are about making yourself feel better. It's why maslo is so persistent in his wilful ignorance.
-
you don't need feedback you need them to vote for the right candidate or sign the right petition.
-
"That one outlier" is the most successful terrorist attack in history and has been the defining event of this generation. I know it's inconvenient to your worldview because it doesn't fit neatly into it, but you do not get to dismiss it just because you don't like its implications. It's important, and it's very pertinent. Deal with it.
I can easily dismiss it simply on the fact that it happened in the US, and we are talking about the security situation in Europe, you know?
Implications of 9/11 are not making your case much better, quite the opposite. No event like that has happened since then, despite strong and bloody involvement of the west in the middle east afterwards. We can thus conclude that such big successful attacks by "tourist terrorists with visas" are very rare, even if we strongly provoke them muslims with plentiful bombardment of their countries - something which is a much bigger provocation than simply restricting immigration. If middle eastern muslims didnt go crazy and started joining Al-Quaeda in droves and causing havoc all over Europe after we destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq, why should I think something like that would happen if we simply closed borders?
And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either. Where are all the terrorists? Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?
Just to get this over with, I never said we should send refugees, or anyone "back to IS", such a thing would be crazy. We should send them into well protected and well funded refugee camps outside Europe. Deporting economic migrants also means they wont end up in any warzone (they wouldnt be economic migrants if they would). I dont think such a policy would create a lot of islamic extremism in the middle east. You certainly cannot claim that it would lead to more extremism and resulting "terrorist tourists" than the Afghanistan and Iraq bloodbath. If that didnt create a serious threat of tourist terrorists, I dont think what I am proposing will.
Where do you put these camps? How do you force people to stay in them? What happens when the terrorists you're so afraid of decide to bomb the entrances to the camps? Are you then going to start saying that the camps were a bad idea? In the meantime you've got a bunch of people living in tents, and it's only a matter of time before those camps turn into ghettoes. Yeah, that won't make anyone feel oppressed.
Brilliant idea. Doesn't actually address the problem, but that's not important. It's all about what it feels like it's doing, right? Far better to keep a bunch of people cooped up in a camp doing nothing than letting them get jobs, educations, and becoming productive members of society. It's not like IS has its origins in US prison camps or anything.
ISIS days are numbered, there is no longetivity to them. Other islamist organizations might emerge afterwards, but without a whole country for themselves, they would pose much less of a threat (not that ISIS poses a big threat to Europe now, compared to homegrown terrorists that is - they are the real threat).
The same way Al Qaeda's days were numbered back in 2001, right?
It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow. Something else will take its place. Maybe not as an overt army, but the point of terrorist movements is that they're not overt.
Meanwhile, all identified terrorists were confirmed to be European nationals on paper, with immigrant backgrounds. Surely they should have integrated by 2 or 3 generation? So much for that notion, lol. As I said, people living inside Europe are the real security threat here, not those far away in middle east.
These attacks are the fruits of creating extremist breeding grounds right inside Europe by open borders policies of the past. Breeding grounds that were again enlarged by a million people this year.
And 200,000 refugees in Germany without a single attack. Truly an epidemic, these terrorists.
Seriously, the percentage of immigrants who become terrorists is so laughably small I don't understand how you think stopping immigration will stop anything. It'd be trivial for them to get tourist visas if they couldn't immigrate, because, again, the number is ****ing tiny. 2 million Muslims in the UK in 2005, and you're prepared to treat all Muslim immigrants as though they were extremists because 4 of them bombed the London subway system. More than 200,000 Syrian immigrants in Europe, and you're ready to close borders because ~20 of them shot up Paris. It's completely irrational.
I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering, since Battuta explained all of this to you and he did a better job writing it up, and it still flew over your head.
I've been following this thread since the beginning, and while you might be more right at the end of the day, I'd certainly suggest seeking some schooling in the art of how to actually seem reasonable... because your posting style mainly comes off as "angry and antagonistic". Which isn't to say you were the only one.
The award for remaining civil despite the circumstances ought to go to 666maslo666. :doubt:
You have no idea how little I care.
-
hope you weren't counting on Hillary to win in 2016 then.
-
you realize you are pushing him and silent third parties further way from your position with the assertions of racism and the "Deal with it", right?
as opposed to 666maslo666's actual, repeatedly-demonstrated racism
which surely won't push any silent third parties away at all
because it's far more important to care about being called a racist than it is to care about racism
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16/the-islamic-state-wants-you-to-hate-refugees/
I look forward to 666maslo666 claiming this is sensationalist and invalid without reading it.
-
And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either. Where are all the terrorists? Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?
I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..
When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations. Which is a testament to the fact that filtering immigrants actually works.
Where do you put these camps? How do you force people to stay in them? What happens when the terrorists you're so afraid of decide to bomb the entrances to the camps? Are you then going to start saying that the camps were a bad idea? In the meantime you've got a bunch of people living in tents, and it's only a matter of time before those camps turn into ghettoes. Yeah, that won't make anyone feel oppressed.
You know these refugee camps already exist, they are just underfunded because we foolishly decided to cut foreign help to them? People wont need force to stay in there if they there funded properly and Schengen borders were properly protected, so there is no incentive to go to Europe.
Far better to keep a bunch of people cooped up in a camp doing nothing than letting them get jobs, educations, and becoming productive members of society. It's not like IS has its origins in US prison camps or anything.
Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).
And 200,000 refugees in Germany without a single attack. Truly an epidemic, these terrorists.
We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.
Seriously, the percentage of immigrants who become terrorists is so laughably small I don't understand how you think stopping immigration will stop anything. It'd be trivial for them to get tourist visas if they couldn't immigrate, because, again, the number is ****ing tiny. 2 million Muslims in the UK in 2005, and you're prepared to treat all Muslim immigrants as though they were extremists because 4 of them bombed the London subway system. More than 200,000 Syrian immigrants in Europe, and you're ready to close borders because ~20 of them shot up Paris.
That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.
-
It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow. Something else will take its place.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
-
It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow. Something else will take its place.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
Where do you think these people get their ideas from? Why are all those attacks linked to people who have spent time in training camps in the middle east?
These organizations are the only threat.
-
And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either. Where are all the terrorists? Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?
I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..
Holy ****, two people! Out of 3 million! Unacceptable percentage!
When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations.
[citation needed]
Or is this another one of your gut feelings?
Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).
All evidence to the contrary, yes. I agree, all those millions of Muslims living peacefully in the West are clear evidence that Muslims just can't live peacefully in the West.
We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.
Yep, we sure are seeing the effects of that policy. I mean, there might be one terrorist for every million Muslims. Way too much of a risk to take.
That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.
You're ready to close borders and deny better lives to hundreds of thousands of people because a combined total of less than 200 people (of a population of ~20 million) have, in the last 15 years, killed less than two thousand people (of a population of 500 million). And you claim I don't understand statistics. What the **** is wrong with you?
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that you're saying this in a thread about an attack orchestrated by Daesh is ****ing amazing.
-
It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow. Something else will take its place.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
Where do you think these people get their ideas from? Why are all those attacks linked to people who have spent time in training camps in the middle east?
These organizations are the only threat.
They are not all linked to such people, just some of them. Still wont do anything if there are no receptive muslim immigrants to radicalize.
And really, the only source of islamist ideas in Europe is IS / al-Quaeda and similar foreign organizations? All those high % of muslims who believe in killing apostates got their ideas from al-Quaeda and IS, not the culture they grew up in? Thats a very bold assertion you are making. I dont think any organization in the world could have that kind of influence. I think you are just trying to deny that muslim culture could be the problem.
-
IS and Qaeda are the only ones recruiting and actively getting people who can be radicalized to a point where they're actually willing to perform terrorist acts.
And yes, the organizers, the main plotters of this attack, of the Charlie Hebdo one? They're ALL LINKED TO ONE OF THE BIG ORGANIZATIONS. It doesn't matter if they're recruiting local help which has never travelled to Syria. Without the big networks like Daesh or Qaeda, this wouldn't be happening.
But yeah, as Aesaar said, that you're spouting that bull**** in a thread about an attack undeniably orchestrated by the islamic networks is frankly unbelievable.
-
IS and Qaeda are the only ones recruiting and actively getting people who can be radicalized to a point where they're actually willing to perform terrorist acts.
Please qualify that statement, because I have a few dead friends and thousands of injured strangers around these parts that would testify otherwise...
-
IS and Qaeda are the only ones recruiting and actively getting people who can be radicalized to a point where they're actually willing to perform terrorist acts.
Please qualify that statement, because I have a few dead friends and thousands of injured strangers around these parts that would testify otherwise...
We've been talking about Europe this entire time and Israel isn't in Europe.
-
We've been talking about Europe this entire time and Israel isn't in Europe.
Ok, I suspected that was the case - thanks for the clarification.
However, don't forget to include Hezbollah (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/what-is-hezbollah-doing-in-europe/374973/) in that list of organizations involved in terrorism in Europe. Yay, I know. :-/
-
Just to get this over with, I never said we should send refugees, or anyone "back to IS", such a thing would be crazy. We should send them into well protected and well funded refugee camps outside Europe.
So like we did in Israel in the 1940's? Cause that worked out so well.
Not to mention why the **** would any country outside Europe want these refugees in large numbers if Europe has deemed them too dangerous to have them in much smaller numbers per country?
-
Aesaar, you realize you are pushing him and silent third parties further way from your position with the assertions of racism and the "Deal with it", right?
feel free to do so, but I just want to make sure you are considering that.
You do realize Silent Third Parties is the kind of stuff we mocked High Max for claiming without evidence here, right?
-
Hi, consider me a formerly silent third party who has refrained from posting anything from fear of being dogpiled.
-
:lol:
-
anyway...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657
-
and seperate from that
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/18/us-france-flights-diverted-idUSKCN0T70D920151118#L3RRmdVRCrwy9ruj.97
-
It doesn't even matter if IS dies tomorrow. Something else will take its place.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
Where do you think these people get their ideas from? Why are all those attacks linked to people who have spent time in training camps in the middle east?
These organizations are the only threat.
They are not all linked to such people, just some of them.
Okay, let's go through the top 20 list you posted earlier in this thread and pick out the Muslim related ones then.
Spain Madrid Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades (suspected) - al-Quaeda Linked
United Kingdom London Secret Organization of al-Qa’ida in Europe - al-Quaeda
Belgium Brussels Individual - ISIS trained
France Montauban Individual,Jund al-Khilafa - al-Quaeda Linked
Also not on your list, the Charlie Hebdo shootings (al-Quaeda of Yemen) and the latest attack on Paris (ISIS).
Not a single attack on that list appears to be from someone NOT linked to ISIS or al-Quaeda unless they weren't Muslim terrorists at all! Furthermore most of these attacks included people who were trained in Middle-Eastern countries. Quite frankly I'm baffled at how you can attempt to claim one type of terrorism is more dangerous than the other when it's pretty obvious that they are both quite dangerous.
-
I don't even get what you guys are arguing about anymore.
-
And yet there are 3 million Muslims in the USA and another million in Canada and they haven't carried out any attacks either. Where are all the terrorists? Why haven't they carried out all the attacks you claim should be happening because of Muslim immigration?
I am pretty sure there was an attack in Boston a while back..
Holy ****, two people! Out of 3 million! Unacceptable percentage!
When it comes to immigration from MENA countries, US and Canada gets the cream of the crop, while Europe gets the bottom of the barrel - its harder to emigrate from MENA to America than to Europe. The quality of immigrants is different, so you cant directly compare the two populations.
[citation needed]
Or is this another one of your gut feelings?
Its pretty obvious that its harder to immigrate into a country that is on the other side of the globe, not reachable by land, than to a close country, reachable by land. Why do you think we dont have any poor Mexicans in Europe, whereas US has plenty? Or US muslims are on average wealthier and more educated than European ones? The world is effortlessly globalized only for the rich, for the poor people, distance and obstacles play a role, so they act as a filter. Thats why US muslims are better integrated. They are the muslim elite. US gets the cream of the crop, Europe gets everyone including the bottom of the barrel. Since Europe does not have Atlantic ocean between us and them, it needs strict immigration policy to play the same role.
Here you go again with your unspoken assumption that they will assimilate easily, despite all evidence to the contrary (and I am not talking just about terrorism).
All evidence to the contrary, yes. I agree, all those millions of Muslims living peacefully in the West are clear evidence that Muslims just can't live peacefully in the West.
Not at the rate I would like ;)
We will see the effects after some time. Just like we see the effects of past open border policies now.
Yep, we sure are seeing the effects of that policy. I mean, there might be one terrorist for every million Muslims. Way too much of a risk to take.
That "laughably small" percentage of terrorists in an already small percentage of immigrants is responsible for half of top 20 terrorist attacks in Europe in the last 15 years. Its still a lot, compared to native Europeans. Its like you dont understand how statistics work, and that when comparing different populations, per-capita rates of the phenomenon in question are important, not absolute numbers.
You're ready to close borders and deny better lives to hundreds of thousands of people because a combined total of less than 200 people (of a population of ~20 million) have, in the last 15 years, killed less than two thousand people (of a population of 500 million). And you claim I don't understand statistics. What the **** is wrong with you?
Yes, if some population proves to have far higher rates of terrorism than the natives, to the point where they are responsible for half of the biggest attacks in the last 15 years in western Europe while making less than 5% of the population, I would think twice before letting too much of them into my country. Sorry, but thats a pretty big overrepresentation. I am not opposed to taking some, but current mass immigration needs to stop, and we certainly cant take the amounts the proposed permanent quotas would result in.
And its not just about terrorism, you know. The rates of extremism itself are a problem (I dont want to live next to people from which double digit percentages believe apostates must be killed, see the earlier polls I posted). The crime rates are significantly higher than the natives all over Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Europe). Economic performance is abysmal (http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/dossiers/allochtonen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2015/zeven-van-de-tien-somaliers-in-de-bijstand.htm). Mass unregulated immigration proves to be simply a bad idea whichever way you look at it. For every deadly terrorist attack, there are a thousand instances of lower-level violence. You cant have one without the other. Thats even bigger issue, IMHO.
I bet that something will be as ineffective at attacking Europe as al-Quaeda and IS were. These organizations dont pose a big threat to us. Homegrown extremists are much more dangerous.
AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH that you're saying this in a thread about an attack orchestrated by Daesh is ****ing amazing.
Organized by homegrown terrorists, European nationals with immigrant background. If they werent here, IS, or anyone who comes afterwards, would have no one to radicalize.
----
Lets summarize our main differences:
You believe successful integration of these people at the rate they are coming will be easy or manageable, I believe its going to be very problematic or impossible.
You believe positives of mass immigration into Europe outweight the negatives, I believe the opposite.
You believe the demograpic crisis in Europe is going to be a bigger problem in the long run than the negatives stemming from mass immigration, I believe the negatives stemming from mass immigration will be a bigger problem than demographic crisis, so it does not make sense to implement a solution that is worse than the problem its trying to fix.
You believe that restricting immigration will result in more terrorism in Europe in the long run by inciting extremism outside our borders, I believe restricting immigration will result in less terrorism in Europe in the long run (or at least halt its increase) by decreasing (at least not increasing) the proportion of populations which are overrepresented in terrorism, compared to the alternative of not doing so.
Its pretty clear that one side wont convince the other when it comes to these issues, so lets just agree to disagree and leave them at that. Let the history (future?) judge who was right. Just leave Eastern Europe out of the Great Multicultural Experiment, please. Its not worth the risk.
-
Just leave Eastern Europe out of the Great Multicultural Experiment, please. Its not worth the risk.
You realize Eastern Europe is the Great Multicultural Experiment's oldest part, the one that dates to at least the Roman Empire, right?
-
Just leave Eastern Europe out of the Great Multicultural Experiment, please. Its not worth the risk.
You realize Eastern Europe is the Great Multicultural Experiment's oldest part, the one that dates to at least the Roman Empire, right?
Good point. It could be that Eastern Europe has centuries of experience with the joys of multiculturalism, after all we have gypsies and suffered under muslim raids. That may be why our stance on the issue is much more rational and cautious. Whereas Western Europe was inhabited only by Europeans until just a few decades ago, so they are much more naive when it comes to this topic. Like a child playing with fire..
-
Lets summarize our main differences:
You believe successful integration of these people at the rate they are coming will be easy or manageable, I believe its going to be very problematic or impossible.
Easy, maybe not, but manageable? Absolutely.
You believe positives of mass immigration into Europe outweight the negatives, I believe the opposite.
Sure, you can believe that. You're wrong, you've been proven wrong historically, but whatever.
You believe the demograpic crisis in Europe is going to be a bigger problem in the long run than the negatives stemming from mass immigration, I believe the negatives stemming from mass immigration will be a bigger problem than demographic crisis, so it does not make sense to implement a solution that is worse than the problem its trying to fix.
I will take a little instability now in exchange for continued stability in 20, 30, 40 years anytime. I do not want to spend my retirement in a country unable to function properly because of an aging population and a xenophobic attitude preventing immigration.
You believe that restricting immigration will result in more terrorism in Europe in the long run by inciting extremism outside our borders, I believe restricting immigration will result in less terrorism in Europe in the long run (or at least halt its increase) by decreasing (at least not increasing) the proportion of populations which are overrepresented in terrorism, compared to the alternative of not doing so.
Given that the goal of the major terrorist networks is to increase friction between muslims and the western world in order to fuel their recruitment, instituting measures guaranteed to increase said friction seems like an incredibly stupid idea, yes.
Its pretty clear that one side wont convince the other when it comes to these issues, so lets just agree to disagree and leave them at that. Let the history (future?) judge who was right. Just leave Eastern Europe out of the Great Multicultural Experiment, please. Its not worth the risk.
As said by NGTM-1R, you're already part of that experiment. You've actually proven it can work over long times. If you want to reap the benefits of being in the EU but not share the burdens of membership, you have no place in it.
-
As said by NGTM-1R, you're already part of that experiment. You've actually proven it can work over long times. If you want to reap the benefits of being in the EU but not share the burdens of membership, you have no place in it.
We have proven the opposite. Gypsies have not managed to assimilate and integrate despite living for many centuries with us. Surely you can understand why we are hesitant to mass import yet another problematic minority, one that is extremely religious on top of the usual problems? Our stance is rooted in experience, yours is just rooted in naive idealism. This is an issue that could change our country for centuries to come, so extreme caution is needed.
EU countries can share many things but sharing migrants from outside EU is not something EU should be here for. It is a problem manufactured by dysfunctional immigration policies and that is how it should also be solved. Not by spreading the problem around, that is not a solution and only encourages admitting more migrants, so it is actually worse than doing nothing. Not to mention mandatory quotas are a huge violation of our sovereignty. Having control over immigration policy is as important as having control over territorial integrity, if not even more so. This is not something EU should decide about.
-
We have proven the opposite. Gypsies have not managed to assimilate and integrate despite living for many centuries with us. Surely you can understand why we are hesitant to mass import yet another problematic minority, one that is extremely religious on top of the usual problems? Our stance is rooted in experience, yours is just rooted in naive idealism. This is an issue that could change our country for centuries to come, so extreme caution is needed.
Could it have something to do with centuries of discrimination, forced settlement, forced sterilization? No, it has to be because Romani are just that bad and evil!
If you consistently discriminate against a particular group, consistently force them to abandon their traditions, it is no wonder they refuse to fully integrate.
You call me naive and idealistic, and on some level I suppose I am, but you're actively blind to the history of your own country if you think these problems are entirely rooted in the culture your so skeptical of.
-
I will take a little instability now in exchange for continued stability in 20, 30, 40 years anytime. I do not want to spend my retirement in a country unable to function properly because of an aging population and a xenophobic attitude preventing immigration.
If we managed to survive and even prosper through youth bulges of the past (which were full of unproductive people, too), then we will manage to live and prosper through a bulge of old people. It is the same thing, just with a time lag of a few generations. The situation is symmetric in time. Especially when we are a fairly developed wealthy country now, we can do it, there will be issues but it absolutely will not lead to a "country unable to function properly", that is just fear mongering.
Having 2,1 children per couple is an ideal situation that is rare in reality. We should not rely on it, rather we must learn adapt to these less than ideal situations. Not begin replace our own people with different ones at the first sign of trouble.
That said, immigration can be part of a solution to mitigate the demographic crisis. I am not a xenophobe opposed to every immigrant. But it must be regulated immigration of productive and culturally compatible people who will assimilate well. Not mass immigration of everyone who wants to come. That will not make the situation better in the long run.
-
Could it have something to do with centuries of discrimination, forced settlement, forced sterilization? No, it has to be because Romani are just that bad and evil!
It could, but I am not convinced it is the deciding factor. Integration is 80% minority doing, 20% majority doing. We also have Vietnamese minority that outperforms native Slovaks in almost all areas, despite being heavily discriminated against, especially in the past. Romas have highly conservative culture that shuns integration, and so they will usually not integrate no matter how you treat them. Similar to muslims..
And in the end, the problem exists anyway. Assuming it is entirely the majority fault (a huge assumption), encouraging mass immigration into a xenophobic culture is still a very bad idea that will only lead to conflicts.
-
anyway...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657
Yer I noticed something about that suggesting 5 arrests including one of the guys who ran the paris attack
-
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/police-believe-attackers-used-forged-passports-to-stigmatize-refugees-1.2662167
Yep, Europeans hating migrants is definitely not something Daesh wants. Not at all.
-
Might as well point out the whole Belgium link now.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/terrorists-belgium-paris-attacks
More than 250 Belgians have left the country to fight alongside jihadis in Syria and Iraq; about 75 have died in combat and 125 have returned. According to the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, Belgium has the highest rate of foreign fighters per capita of all Europe.
And funnily enough it's implicated in a long list of terrorist attacks.
-
If we managed to survive and even prosper through youth bulges of the past (which were full of unproductive people, too), then we will manage to live and prosper through a bulge of old people. It is the same thing, just with a time lag of a few generations. Especially when we are a fairly developed wealthy country now, we can do it, there will be issues but it absolutely will not lead to a "country unable to function properly", that is just fear mongering.
Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age. Unless you assume that individual productivity rises enough so that one working member of society can support several elderly ones, it's going to be necessary to cut welfare for the elderly.
This is Japan's problem: They're not going to be able to support their aging population if demographic trends continue, unless they cut standards or devise a method to keep increasing economic output per person or encourage immigration. Cutting standards is never going to go over well. Increasing productivity assumes that continual progress can and will be made (which is incredibly optimistic). The only method known and guaranteed to work is to import labor from elsewhere.
To a lesser extent, this is true of any developed nation. Raising these issues and questioning whether we're doing enough to keep our society functioning at the standards we're used is not fear mongering. It's prudent.
Having 2,1 children per couple is an ideal situation that is rare in reality. We should not rely on it, rather we must learn adapt to these less than ideal situations. Not begin replace our own people with different ones at the first sign of trouble.
That said, immigration can be part of a solution to mitigate the demographic crisis. I am not a xenophobe opposed to every immigrant. But it must be regulated immigration of productive and culturally compatible people who will assimilate well. Not mass immigration of everyone who wants to come. That will not make the situation better in the long run.
How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?
-
One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one dependent for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.
Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.
Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.
How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?
Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.
Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them. So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.
-
New raid in St. Denis caught or killed 7 individuals. One of whom blew herself up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657
-
One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one elderly for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.
Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.
Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.
This is because youths grow up and enter the workforce. Elderly people do not. As life expectancy increases, the number of people who are retired and no longer contributing to the workforce increases relative to the population in addition to absolutely. This is not an anomalous spike in the number of elderly residents in a country, it's a trend that has been apparent for decades.
-
I found a really nice study about Japan aging with actually relevant numbers:
http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/ppfj2012.pdf
Look at page 31. Currently, working age people make up 63,8% of Japanese population. In 2060, this very important number is going to decrease to somewhere between 52,6% and 48,9%, depending on some assumptions about future fertility and mortality rates.
Now it is undeniably a negative development.
But, is such decrease going to ruin the Japanese economy?
Certainly not. It is just not significant enough to do anything like that.
-
New raid in St. Denis caught or killed 7 individuals. One of whom blew herself up.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657
Damn they not sure if they got the bastard behind it
-
Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.
Sure, you can do that.
But then you're not going to get as many immigrants as you need, your criteria are incredibly prejudiced (and easily proven to be prejudiced), and you're going to only get qualified people which will cause unrest among your population because they're going to take previously high-paying jobs away from the natives. See, for example, German immigrants in Switzerland.
And let me ask you a question: If you're going to sort by ethnicity and deducting points for being, say, Romani, how the **** are you not being racist?
Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them.
So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.
You are incredibly wrong. The more educated and older your population gets, the fewer people are there to do the low-paying, entry-level jobs the economy needs. That's where immigrants come in. They're going to make better money than they would get at home, they get to lay foundations for social mobility for their children, and while they're doing it, do a valuable service for the economy.
If you restrict immigration to qualified people on the other hand they're going to be seen as a threat by your own natives, because they're going to compete for the high-paying, high profile jobs people want to get. This causes friction.
I found a really nice study about Japan aging with actually relevant numbers:
http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/esuikei/ppfj2012.pdf
Look at page 31. Currently, working age people make up 63,8% of Japanese population. In 2060, this very important number is going to decrease to somewhere between 52,6% and 48,9%, depending on some assumptions about future fertility and mortality rates.
Now it is undeniably a negative development.
But, is such decrease going to ruin the Japanese economy?
Certainly not. It is just not significant enough to do anything like that.
Look at the table on the next page and the page preceding it. The proportion of young people under working age declines from 13.1 to 6.9 to 11.6%. The proportion of people in retirement age rises from 23% to 35% to 44%. What does that mean? In simple terms, the number of people dependant on state help rises sharply, while the number of people replenishing the workforce falls drastically.
A clear illustration of this can be found in table 1-4. Here, even under the most optimistic of assumptions, the dependency ratio (i.e. the ratio between the working members of society and nonworking ones) rises sharply from 56.7% to 92.7%, meaning that each working person will have to support about 1 nonworking person. Under pessimistic assumptions, 1 worker will have to support 1 nonworker. This is not sustainable unless we assume that individual productivity can rise to a level where the economy can bear the burden, which is an assumption that is fundamentally unsafe and idiotic to make. As a result, Japan needs to court massive immigration, as this is the only safe option that can rebalance the age pyramid and make sure that the country remains stable.
-
Boom, boom, boom.
https://www.funker530.com/france-drops-bombs-on-daesh-in-raqqa-syria/
French Air Force has begun the bombardment of Raqqa.
May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible. However I don't believe that air strikes alone will solve the problem. Decisive victory will have to be achieved "on foot".
-
May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible.
Seems more likely that they'll mainly kill and maim civilians as usual.
-
yeah, well that's not what one would hope for.
-
May every bomb and rocket hit the target and kill as many terrorists as possible.
Seems more likely that they'll mainly kill and maim civilians as usual.
Collateral damage :/ Ugly thing but it is never 0% even today with precise guided ordnance.
I hope that they have good intel though.
-
One working citizen will never have to support several elderly ones, that is absurd. These countries have fertility rates around 1.3, not zero! At worst we may get somewhere around a ratio of one dependent for one working age. Which is an issue, but certainly doable IMHO.
Except that having too many people able to work is not as big a problem as having too many people unable to do work due to age.
Children are not able to work, so I dont know what you are talking about here. Countries with youth bulges are in the exact same situation as countries with too much elderly. Both have an increased share of dependents on the working population. The fact that we got through a youth bulge in the past strongly points towards the fact that we will similarly get through an old people bulge. After all, we may have more old people to take care of, but less kids to take care of (who are also a burden on the eocnomy). Therefore we can conclude that while an issue, it will not be very serious.
How do you measure cultural compatibility? How do you measure productivity? How do you avoid situations where immigrants get shunned for "taking away our jobs", when the only people you're allowing in are ones aiming for qualified jobs? How low do you set your standards to get the base number of immigrants you need?
Isnt it obvious? We can look at indicators such as crime rates of different nationalities, achieved education and income of the immigrant etc. Then we can restrict immigration based on some kind of a point system. This would serve to filter out problematic people while still letting the best immigrate.
Obviously, the more qualified a job, the less true the rhetoric about "taking our jobs" is. It is simple supply and demand. Low paying jobs are low paying because there is high supply of such people and low demand for them. So allowing low qualified immigration does steal jobs and only exacerbates poverty, while doing little to help the economy. Since I care about our poor, I am against allowing such migration. On the other hand, high paying jobs are high paying because there is low amount of applicants for the position. Thats why highly qualified migrants are unlikely to steal someones job.
Perhaps it's anecdotal, but here in southern Ontario we just watched a major steel company collapse in large part because their pension program was paying for 20000 retirees, but they only had 800 current employees. The ballooning number of elderly is a serious problem, and 1 child does not cost nearly the same as one elderly person to support. The two are simply not comparable.
-
so what you all are saying is that all the people who have been saying that there are too many people, that the earth cannot sustain a never ending growth in human population were all full of **** and we really should all have had 9 kids like our grandparents..
-
No, we're saying that when the population starts to shrink your civilisation is barrelling rapidly towards a cliff.
-
Y'know, as someone who can trace his ancestry to multiple Eastern European ethnicities (including your own maslo), the completely racist-as-**** behavior by so many of those countries over the refugee issue makes me incredibly ashamed to admit as much.
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/abdelhamid-abaaoud-killed-saint-denis-raid-officials-n466146?cid=sm_fb
The Belgian jihadist suspected of being the ringleader of the Paris terrorist attacks was killed during a raid on a suburban apartment, officials said Thursday.
Got the bastard
-
Sure, you can do that.
But then you're not going to get as many immigrants as you need, your criteria are incredibly prejudiced (and easily proven to be prejudiced), and you're going to only get qualified people which will cause unrest among your population because they're going to take previously high-paying jobs away from the natives. See, for example, German immigrants in Switzerland.
And let me ask you a question: If you're going to sort by ethnicity and deducting points for being, say, Romani, how the **** are you not being racist?
Qualified people is what I want. It is the unqualified that cause unrest and steal jobs.
I did not say anything about ethnicity, you are putting words in my mouth. I said nationality, education, income.. all perfectly valid criteria that can be used to select immigrants. Remember, immigration is a privilege, not a right. You ultimately do not have to allow anyone to immigrate. So whether you want to consider points system a prejudice or not, it is the best system and entirely ethical.
You are incredibly wrong. The more educated and older your population gets, the fewer people are there to do the low-paying, entry-level jobs the economy needs. That's where immigrants come in. They're going to make better money than they would get at home, they get to lay foundations for social mobility for their children, and while they're doing it, do a valuable service for the economy.
If you restrict immigration to qualified people on the other hand they're going to be seen as a threat by your own natives, because they're going to compete for the high-paying, high profile jobs people want to get. This causes friction.
It is the opposite in eastern Europe, we certainly have too much unqualified people and too little qualified ones. Anyway, I do not believe there will be strong need for unqualified labor in the future, not here and not in Japan. Modern economies simply do not need many such people, and this trend will only continue in the future. By importing them you are more likely to increase poverty and steal jobs than truly help the economy.
There is one more important point to make here. Most taxes are usually paid by high paying workers, especially in progressive tax systems, with low paying workers barely breaking even when it comes to funding the state. So even if you import lots of low paying workers, they wont help much to fund pensions, if at all.
Look at the table on the next page and the page preceding it. The proportion of young people under working age declines from 13.1 to 6.9 to 11.6%. The proportion of people in retirement age rises from 23% to 35% to 44%. What does that mean? In simple terms, the number of people dependant on state help rises sharply, while the number of people replenishing the workforce falls drastically.
A clear illustration of this can be found in table 1-4. Here, even under the most optimistic of assumptions, the dependency ratio (i.e. the ratio between the working members of society and nonworking ones) rises sharply from 56.7% to 92.7%, meaning that each working person will have to support about 1 nonworking person. Under pessimistic assumptions, 1 worker will have to support 1 nonworker. This is not sustainable unless we assume that individual productivity can rise to a level where the economy can bear the burden, which is an assumption that is fundamentally unsafe and idiotic to make. As a result, Japan needs to court massive immigration, as this is the only safe option that can rebalance the age pyramid and make sure that the country remains stable.
It is as I said, one working person may have to support one non-working, but not several ones. This is not an ideal situation, but sustainable IMHO. I do believe individual productivity will rise significantly until 2060, because of investments in science and technology and general growth of the economy and efficiency. Past trends are clearly like this and there is no reason to believe it will not continue to hold.
Another thing to take into account is that this is not all about the pensions. If you allow immigration of migrants that have trouble assimilating, then you are also importing crime, poverty, ethnic conflicts, terrorism and extremism. And this is a very serious issue because once you admit such people inside the country and they wont integrate well, such problems can go on for many generations or centuries. You could be negatively affecting even you childrens children. These reasons alone are sufficient to justify being very careful about who to let in.
-
Can we just get someone to strike out every statement made without evidence here? It'll leave the post in ruins, but it'd be just.
-
so what you all are saying is that all the people who have been saying that there are too many people, that the earth cannot sustain a never ending growth in human population were all full of **** and we really should all have had 9 kids like our grandparents..
Number of children needed for stable population is around 2.1 per couple. Any deviation from this, either higher or lower, and you have changing population size which means more economically inactive dependents per working person (either children or old people). So all having 9 kids is not a good idea. But neither is having only 1.3 kids.
-
Qualified people is what I want. It is the unqualified that cause unrest and steal jobs.
I did not say anything about ethnicity, you are putting words in my mouth. I said nationality, education, income.. all perfectly valid criteria that can be used to select immigrants. Remember, immigration is a privilege, not a right. You ultimately do not have to allow anyone to immigrate. So whether you want to consider points system a prejudice or not, it is the best system and entirely ethical.
No, you were pretty clear in your condemnations of Gypsy culture. Also, if you're taking nationality into account, then by the magic of how nations are formed, you are also counting ethnicity.
It is the opposite in eastern Europe, we certainly have too much unqualified people and too little qualified ones. Anyway, I do not believe there will be strong need for unqualified labor in the future, not here and not in Japan. Modern economies simply do not need many such people, and this trend will only continue in the future. By importing them you are more likely to increase poverty and steal jobs than truly help the economy.
There is one more important point to make here. Most taxes are usually paid by high paying workers, especially in progressive tax systems, with low paying workers barely breaking even when it comes to funding the state. So even if you import lots of low paying workers, they wont help much to fund pensions, if at all.
You really, really need to stop assuming things and start reading about how modern economies work. The money people in low-income situations get is very quickly recirculated through the economy, unlike that paid to the highest earners, which tends to stay in the pockets of those high earners.
Secondly, untrained people are available for training. They can be used, and are used, to cover situations where a lot of labor is needed quickly. Trained people? Not so much. Someone with a full job qualification or degree is orders of magnitude less flexible than someone who just got out of school, and that sort of flexibility is absolutely necessary.
It is as I said, one working person may have to support one non-working, but not several ones. This is not an ideal situation, but sustainable IMHO.
Citation needed. For this to work, every working member of society (and, you will note, this assumes that everyone capable of working is actually working) needs to generate enough revenue for society that another, nonworking person can live off of it. Since not a single economy on this planet manages to employ everyone (for that matter, full employment is actually a bad thing), and since not every job will be equally highly paid, we know that people above a certain income threshold will have to be so highly taxed as to make getting into highly paid jobs no longer worthwhile.
Now, here's some homework for you to do. Research the positive effects illegal labor has had on the economy of the southern US.
I do believe individual productivity will rise significantly until 2060, because of investments in science and technology and general growth of the economy and efficiency. Past trends are clearly like this and there is no reason to believe it will not continue to hold.
Are you willing to bet your retirement on that assumption?
You assume there's effectively infinite growth potential, you assume that economic growth will continue to happen, you assume that efficiency can rise so that the unbalanced age pyramid doesn't matter, and you call ME naive?
Another thing to take into account is that this is not all about the economy. If you allow immigration of migrants that have trouble assimilating, then you are also importing crime, ethnic conflicts and terrorism. And this is a very serious issue because once you admit such people inside the country and they wont integrate well, such problems can go on for many generations or centuries. You could be negatively affecting even you childrens children. These reasons alone are sufficient to justify being very careful about who to let in.
It is, ultimately, only about the economy. People stuck in economic dead ends tend to be restless. People living in safety, with a roof over their heads and food in their bellies and their kids on the way to a better life will rarely be a problem. People who want those things, but can't get them because some racist ****tard decided that Syrians cannot be good citizens will become a problem.
-
Black people and gypsies are problematic minorities and are a perfect example of why immigration is bad.
Why are you saying I'm racist? Stop putting words in my mouth!
-
and of course both of them are about as far from being 'immigrants' as you can be
-
Black people and gypsies are problematic minorities and are a perfect example of why immigration is bad.
Why are you saying I'm racist? Stop putting words in my mouth!
I should hasten to add that these are not Aesaars opinions. They're direct quotes from maslo.
-
I think it's about time this thread died a death.
No specific punitive measures but I've had enough of posts from here being reported and it looks like the back-and-forth will just go on.
Please don't start up another thread on the same theme.