[FrikgFeek]

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

This is completely unrelated to what I was talking about. I never said nothing should be done about it, I said that bringing in the military into a police matter is a really ****ty idea that almost never works as intended.

[Bobboau]

forgive me for jumping into a thread having only read your one post, but it begs the question (and maybe you just answered this and I'm a lazy asshole) what do you think should be done?

[Phantom Hoover]

The police should handle it? You know, the police, whose job it is to enforce the law on civilians in peacetime, rather than the military who are trained to kill enemy combatants?

[FrikgFeek]

I think I was pretty clear on the matter. Or are you expecting me to post exactly what should be done step by step to solve both short and long term problems that come with mass immigration? Anything I posted on that matter would have to be insultingly simplified to even be readable within a single page, if it was that simple we wouldn't have so much trouble with it.

P.S. don't jump into threads having only read 1 post, it's really bad forum manners.

[jr2]

The problem is, the police could handle the issue if immigrants were being rather peaceful.  If enough of them are causing trouble (too many for the current level of police forces to handle), hen you need to have military assistance, or find some other (I'd love to hear exactly what) solution to the problem.

It does boggle my mind why you would leave your own country supposedly to escape trouble, and then start trouble in the country you fled to. 

[NGTM-1R]

The problem is, the police could handle the issue if immigrants were being rather peaceful.

Or if they're not being peaceful. Large-scale civil unrest is still a matter for the police. The French manage to have their major riots every few years without the army. The Germans managed to hold the G-8 conference during the era of the weekend anarchists without the army.

The only reason the army is being advocated is because of Scary Foreigners. They are not, however, Scary Armed Organized Foreigners, which is what you use the army for.

[Bobboau]

well, in times of extraordinary crisis the military is often called upon. for instance. if a situation is beyond the capability of the police to handle it would make sense to fall back on the military. further securing national borders is very much within the purview of the military. that said it doesn't necessitate the military or mean it's appropriate in this instance.

[FrikgFeek]

Disaster relief has already been mentioned. Just please, read the damn thread before posting something that's already been dealt with. And no, apologising in advance doesn't make it OK, if you're interested enough in the discussion to post then reading at least the last page shouldn't be that hard.

Disaster relief doesn't really count in this, because those operations are exercises in large-scale logistics under adverse conditions, something militaries all over the planet excel at.

[Bobboau]

meh /*shrug*/

and read the very end of my last post.

[NGTM-1R]

The thing is, if you have to deploy the army to deal with anything less than a large, highly organized group of people, then your society is in serious doo-doo and it's time to restructure. You haven't been spending enough on the cops or you've successfully pissed off a large enough segment of the population that you're going to have to reform some stuff.

[666maslo666]

You haven't been spending enough on the cops or you've successfully pissed off a large enough segment of the population that you're going to have to reform some stuff.

But in this case they are not a segment of the population! If you had large scale riots of your own people, then yes, there may be a possibility that something is legitimately wrong. But if it is the foreigners that are rioting, then they are using violence to try to change a society which doesnt belong to them to their ways. It is not justifiable anymore than going into Saudi Arabia and then rioting about burkas.

The only reason the army is being advocated is because of Scary Foreigners. They are not, however, Scary Armed Organized Foreigners, which is what you use the army for.

At least when it comes to border protection, you can use the army against both, if the police is overwhelmed by the numbers. Otherwise it would mean that a sufficiently numerous bunch of unarmed and unorganized foreigners would be able to cross borders at will. Which to me is a ridiculous conclusion.

[Grizzly]

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

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

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

Ok this is going to sound a bit of the wall buuutttttttt - What is it about Poland that makes foreigners want to buy guns there? Anders Breivik went to Prague for that reason.

But in this case they are not a segment of the population! If you had large scale riots of your own people, then yes, there may be a possibility that something is legitimately wrong. But if it is the foreigners that are rioting, then they are using violence to try to change a society which doesnt belong to them to their ways. It is not justifiable anymore than going into Saudi Arabia and then rioting about burkas.

What is this about refugees rioting? So far, the only damage I can see done from my comfy home in the Netherlands is being done by racist germans.

[Bobboau]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-offers-deal-to-turkey-to-take-back-migrants/2016/03/18/809d80ba-ebab-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

is this as big a deal as it seems to be?

[Mikes]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/europe-offers-deal-to-turkey-to-take-back-migrants/2016/03/18/809d80ba-ebab-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

is this as big a deal as it seems to be?

Yes and no ...

Some article put it to the point (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/star-oekonom-sinn-hans-werner-sinn-merkels-strategie-ist-gefaehrlich-und-unrealistisch_id_5327049.html): "And if Germany doesn't behave how we want, Turkey will let some immigrants through!"

We'll see how it goes I guess ... but it seems Erdogan is keen on EU membership and - I guess - appreciates some leverage to make people look the other way during the membership process when state troopers occupy government critical newspaper again.

[666maslo666]

This deal is certainly a good progress from current situation, but I do not really trust Turkey to keep their part of the deal. Europe cannot and should not try to outsource its immigration policy to Turkey. First we must ensure that we get to control how many migrants enter and stay on European soil and waters, and then it is time to make deals with Turkey, from a much stronger position.

[Dragon]

Turkey is a good choice, though. In the current situation, it's a short-term solution, but it can work as long as they're willing to cooperate. Care must be taken, however, that Europe is in a stronger position by the time Turkey might stop liking this arrangement. A largely secular, but predominantly Muslim country is certainly a better choice than where they're ending up now.

Ok this is going to sound a bit of the wall buuutttttttt - What is it about Poland that makes foreigners want to buy guns there? Anders Breivik went to Prague for that reason.

First of all, Prague is in Czech Republic, not in Poland. I would suspect that price might play a role here, Polish Zloty is rather worthless, especially now (I don't know how Czech Korona was standing at the time, but it couldn't have been much stronger than Zloty). I certainly didn't notice the gun laws being less stringent than in the rest of Europe (maybe just a little bit). It's also comparably remote, so tracing the gun to Poland or other Central European countries might take some time. Russia would probably be better in that regard, but it happens to have very strict limitations on civilian gun ownership, so it's out unless you have connections with organized crime there. Also, I believe some might count on corruptibility of Polish officials (in vein of Russian ones), but it's gone down lately, as those Arabs found out.

[Grizzly]

This deal is certainly a good progress from current situation, but I do not really trust Turkey to keep their part of the deal. Europe cannot and should not try to outsource its immigration policy to Turkey. First we must ensure that we get to control how many migrants enter and stay on European soil and waters, and then it is time to make deals with Turkey, from a much stronger position.

One of the biggest changes made in the current deal compared to the draft is that Turkey will only get their privileges (such as visa-free travel) once they actually keep their part of the deal, which will not happen at the current rate.

[Grizzly]

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

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

The E has a point: The immigration crisis is a crisis, but it is, ultimately, one issue. An issue that is much bigger then it should have been (because it's not like the UN has been warning that this would happen for 5 years now), but... Look at the elections in the 3 Bundesländer that happened a week or so back: The biggest winners were the Nationalists (who are openly anti-Merkel), and the Socialists and the Greens (who openly support Merkel). The Christians (Merkel's party) took a big hit which is mostly related to their figureheads having unclear viewpoints on the whole thing - they distanced themselves from Merkel but were not openly anti immigrant to the level of the nationalists. This has two serious ramifications, the first obviously being that a nationalist party is now part of German politics, and the second that german politics have become more polarized - not just on the issue of immigration - which can not be fixed by the Bundesländer anyway as it's the job of the Bundesrepublik, similar to how the governor of Texas does not have an impact on the White House's foreign policy - but on various other social issues as well as is the obvious consequence of having the centrist christians losing ground to both left wing parties and right wing parties depending on the particular Bundesländer you look at.

In the end, this matters more then the care for refugees as refugees do not wield political power. Ultimately, the biggest impact the refugees in Germany can do to Germany is far less then the impact the Nationalists can have if it's proposal to return to the Mark or giving police officers the right to use lethal force in response to non-compliance are pushed trough.

[Mika]

Interesting arguments here.

What I can say is that surely nobody doubts that disaster relief is a common thing for all militaries in the world. But what you don't know is that Finnish Defense Forces conscripts have already been deployed in handling the refugees to the reception centers. Not to mention that the Finnish Peacekeepers are quite well-known for keeping the peace in the conflict areas they are deployed, courtesy of us having a reservist army rather than a career army where the training of the personnel is radically different. The difference is quite well demonstrated in this little incident.  What is left unmentioned is that the twenty guys defending the position also prevented an air strike against the locals (several times), which would have killed hundreds. So of any armies around here, I'd say we'd have a best shot of not escalating anything if the reservists are deployed. Mind you that it has already happened in a couple of large scale police operations where some resistance was expected.

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

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

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

If you didn't realize it, you are also advocating inequality with this. You're basically saying that the dudes coming here are better citizens as they clearly should be governed by different laws. There's also a term for this; it is called "apartheid". And this time, the majority is the oppressed, and it is that same majority that pays the bills. Not to mention that the equivalence is heavily emphasized in Finnish culture. So any guesses what will happen in the long term? With pressing forward, you'd be going towards the societal collapse and removal of all the oh-so-valuable norms and values; there is already tension between the labor and the government doing budget cuts, and Russia being ready to take the advantage on the Eastern border.

So yeah, constructing an idealistic argument is easy. I can do that too.

All this brings to mind one announcement where a pair of female students were looking for a room-mate. In the add they were looking for a person who is tolerant, open-minded and easy going just as they are. In the next sentence, they also said their room-mate should also be vegan, not wear any animal tested make-up, not using clothes made of synthetic materials, only approved bio-shampoo and so on. I never go to the bottom of it to see whether it was a joke or real (or if they ever found a room-mate), but I suppose the point is clear: you can easily become intolerant in your perceived tolerance, which is exactly what happened above.

EDIT

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

Thanks for dealing with this stuff in the right way. Shop owner should get a rise for alerting the police and the AT squad a commendation for prompt response. No surprise they are originally from the well-integrating Netherlands. As they have been from well-integrating Sweden, well-integrating Germany, well-integrating France, well-integrating UK... 

[Dragon]

There's a problem with blanket "tolerance" statements. Namely, they're very non-specific. What does it mean you are "tolerant"? Those girls, for example, would probably be perfectly fine with a black lesbian Muslim being their roommate. However, eating animals is, in their eyes, bad enough that they're not going to stand for it. They're probably the kind of vegan that considers killing animals to be murder. Dunno about you, but I'm very much not tolerant towards murderers, no matter how I feel about their skin color or religion. I also don't have much tolerance towards those who equate humans and animals like that, for that matter. But skin color, ethnicity, culture, even religion? I have no problem with that. Am I a tolerant person, or not?

I don't think that there's a person in the world that would practice "absolute tolerance", nor do I think it's a good idea. Most people could be described as "tolerant, except for the things which are unacceptable". What varies is where the line is drawn.

A lot of things are happening which we definitely should not be "tolerant" about. Being Muslim is not one of them, but Muslim immigrants are the ones who do many (not all) of these things. Humans have a tendency to generalize, so there is a trend towards lumping "being a Muslim immigrant" or even just "being a Muslim" with those things. We can tolerate them having their own religion, ethnicity and culture. We can't tolerate them enforcing their own laws and rules, especially if they're in conflict with our own. If we can't coexist without either side adapting (a debatable statement, but it seems to be the case), they should be the ones to adapt, not us.