• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
After the end of WW2, there were millions of truly traumatized people in Europe and elsewhere. Very few used that as an excuse to commit crimes.

None-the-less, they committed many crimes. To think there was no crime is to be a child.

And the most outstanding crimes, continued for many years, were the murder and torture of millions by the communist/socialist "people's " republics. Murder inclined sadists and other psychopaths could join the security services there and get paid for getting their sick kicks, and did.
 
It appears that Sweden may at last expel failed asylum seekers per this report here but this would take several years, so perhaps in reality few will actually be repatriated.

However in Europe the word may in such circumstances also means maybe not. I believe a substantial amount may eventually be repatriated.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sweden-expel-80-000-migrants-015149730.html

Here is an interesting point, where I have been mentioning a lack of security, which we can see has reduced the number of migrants

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

But the media report still seems to be blaming the Swedish authorities for a murder of one of its care workers, for which a teenage migrant was charged.


See

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

The announcement comes after a teenage asylum seeker was arrested on suspicion of murdering a female employee at a youth refugee centre in Molndal, near Gothenburg, earlier this week.

A motive for the stabbing attack was not clear, but her death has led to questions about overcrowded conditions in some centres, with too few adults and employees to look after children, many traumatised by war.


Traumatized is still used as justification for any acts of violence and breaking the law. Perhaps the court may apply the law in sentencing after a fair trial.
Perhaps the insistence of ID checks will reduce the proportion of crimes.
After the end of WW2, there were millions of truly traumatized people in Europe and elsewhere. Very few used that as an excuse to commit crimes.

Lol... Crimes rates in Europe were rampant during and after WW2. Completely off the charts.

Here's a couple of articles focusing on just England:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/29/blitz-london-crime-flourish-blackout

http://spartacus-educational.com/2WWcrime.htm

It's just normal human behaviour. In sociology it's well known and well researched. It's called "anomie".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

Whenever there is war people do absolutely horrendous things to each other. People often willingly do morally repulsive stuff they later can't understand how they could justify to themselves. Even though they're inhabiting the same brain they can't even follow their own lines of logic. They often explain it in terms as if this is another person's memories. It's fascinating and I recommend you read up on it. And it's a universal behavioural trait that cuts straight across all cultures. Whenever traditions break down you get this shit.

This also happens whenever there's great economic shifts. Any country that industrialises will go through 50-70 of periods like this.

So... yeah... How does it feel to be extremely super wrong?
 
It appears that Sweden may at last expel failed asylum seekers per this report here but this would take several years, so perhaps in reality few will actually be repatriated.

However in Europe the word may in such circumstances also means maybe not. I believe a substantial amount may eventually be repatriated.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sweden-expel-80-000-migrants-015149730.html

This is all according to Swedish policy. Sweden all along said that all refugees are guaranteed residency. But that assumes they can prove they really are refugees. Anybody judged as an economic migrant will be sent back (to wherever they're from). So this isn't break from policy. I'm sure many migrants were just hoping that Sweden would expand their generosity to include even them. But I guess not. And I'm fine with this. We're still the country who has taken in the most per capita. So I don't think we have anything to be ashamed about.

But these poor people will have to wait a minimum of two years... probably several years longer... before processed. Because it's very bureaucratic and slow. During this time they're isolated in their camps and forbidden from working. Just a really dumb system.

Here is an interesting point, where I have been mentioning a lack of security, which we can see has reduced the number of migrants

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

But the media report still seems to be blaming the Swedish authorities for a murder of one of its care workers, for which a teenage migrant was charged.

Resources at the state agency is spread thin. They were at their breaking point well before this shit all started. And now it's worse. Shit is bound to happen in these cases. It's a question of funding. Sweden has chosen to have an extremely expensive system for migration while at the same time not funding it enough. Just a lot of dumb fiscal choices all around.

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

The announcement comes after a teenage asylum seeker was arrested on suspicion of murdering a female employee at a youth refugee centre in Molndal, near Gothenburg, earlier this week.

A motive for the stabbing attack was not clear, but her death has led to questions about overcrowded conditions in some centres, with too few adults and employees to look after children, many traumatised by war.


Traumatized is still used as justification for any acts of violence and breaking the law. Perhaps the court may apply the law in sentencing after a fair trial.
Perhaps the insistence of ID checks will reduce the proportion of crimes.

I don't think it's used as a justification. But lawyers will grasp at any straws to get their clients off. Why wouldn't they try?
 
I don't agree. There's some sort of assumption here that we know what would have happened if the outside world wouldn't have meddled. If the world community wouldn't have meddled we'd still have apartheid in South Africa

And South Africa would be better off. Only one country in Africa has been improved by the end of colonialism.
 
I don't agree. There's some sort of assumption here that we know what would have happened if the outside world wouldn't have meddled. If the world community wouldn't have meddled we'd still have apartheid in South Africa

And South Africa would be better off. Only one country in Africa has been improved by the end of colonialism.

Not to point out the obvious but democracy isn't magic. It requires a well educated population for the voters to vote intelligently. You get the voters you deserve. When the whites were in power they didn't care about educating the blacks. So yes, we can blame South Africa's problems today on the whites from back in the apartheid days. They should have seen this day coming a long while off and invested heavily into black education. But they didn't. So we got dumb ass presidents like Jakob "absolute moron" Zuma.

And nothing would have been solved by letting the whites stay in power. They would never have put money into the townships. The only way was this way. Ripping the band-aid off and hoping the country picks itself up. Few things is a mystery once you give it some thought.
 
I don't question that there's a huge gaping hole. I'm wondering why the size of that hole is so out of proportion? And why the rest of the world is supposed to care as much as we are? I can think of a whole bag of conflicts since 1948 that that are as serious and complex as the Israel-Palestine conflict. Yet, we don't give many fucks. We just keep coming back to this run-of-the-mill festering mess. I'm just asking why? Israel is a tiny speck of a nation. It's roughly the size of Sweden. Who cares this fucking much? Yes, it's a mess. But I care less about this conflict than the conflict in Sudan, Rwanda, ex-Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Uigur conflict in China, Hong Kong's democracy issues, Internet censorship, Arab Spring's aftermath, South Africa's continual slide into dysfunction, Zimbabwe, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda vs the world, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the endless Somalia bullshit, Al-Shabaab, Greece's economic woes, the rise of nationalism in Europe and the topic of this thread. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I've forgotten hundreds, if not thousands, of contenders as a bigger bag of mess than this conflict.

And here's the clincher, there's been nothing new to Israel/Palestine conflict in the last 50 years. It's the same bullshit as in 1948. There's two highly nationalistic and chauvinistic groups squabbling over the same plot of land and they are seemingly unable to respect each other. Which needs to happen before any negotiation is meaningful. As long as this situation remains the same, I don't know what there is to discuss? To quote my Hungarian-Israeli (and Jewish) ex-wife when I asked her what she thinks of the conflict. Her answer was "the Palestinians and Israelis deserve each other".

Why do you care so fucking much?

Nobody wants to answer your question, and have conciously or subconciously changed the subject to South Africa.

I'll give it a shot.

We Europeans and North Americans still feel guilty about the way the Jews were treated in the past, even if we don't admit it and were not alive at the time this happened. The way they were treated was enough for some of them to become Zionists and seek refuge and peace in Palestine, at that time a possession of the Ottoman Empire. Later this continued under British rule, with rising Arab opposition to it.
After centuries of discrimination and sporadic murder of Jews by Europe's Christians all over Europe at some time or another, came the Shoah or Holocaust, and after that, the mass immigration to and creation and defence of Israel.
This involved mass killing and expulsion of Arabs and subsequent "firm" rule of Arabs by Israelis, including the theft of land and property in the Occupied Territories.
All this backed by the USA and its powerful Jewish lobby, and to a lesser or greater extent by Europe, by supply of arms and finances.
Israel's "Realpolitik" (the only possible way it can exist without using its nuclear arsenal) continues to oppress the Arabs and its theft of land continues un abated, and now the US and Europe feel (slightly) guilty about conspiring to aid and abet that in practice, with the occasional anti-Israeli vote in the UN to salve their consciences, always vetoed by the US. And US aid to Israel continues and France and Russia and others want to make deals with Iran now the sanctions are lifted, all sides making sanctimonious noises.

In the meantime the Arab and Islamist-Iranian threat to Israel continues and all Israelis and all Arabs are aware of this.

And of course religions, and their "holy places", make everything worse and both sides are becoming more and more hawkish. (The unusual sight of theocrat Iranian ruler and of alleged secularist Netanyahu acting in a statesmanlike fashion may surprise some, but both of these individuals know that they are doing just that, acting, whilst gathering power and allies.)

So your wife is right, they deserve one another, but she might as well say that we all, the humans, the technologically and philosophically "advanced" apes who, for all our posturing, remain tribalist aggressive animals, we too, deserve one another.

You've only explained the conflict. You haven't explained how this conflict has got so much attention.

The best analysis I'very read is that when Israel started 1948 it was a scrappy little unruly lot. We like rooting for the underdog. And when the rest of the Arab world was defeated it was just like when the Karate Kid lands the fatal blow on the big bully. Israel won the PR-war.

Jump to 1968 and the leftist revolts. Whatever our parents liked we now dislike. Just like Hegel predicted. So now the young people were pro Palestine and the grown-ups pro Israel. Then when they grew up it was more of a lefty = Palestine. Conservative = Israel.

So it is more like having a favorite sports team than being about politics. That's why it's such a pseudo debate. It's not that we disagree on policy it's more like you're a monster because of your beliefs. Such drama. Storm in a tea cup.

I found this theory convincing anyway
 
It's a huge gaping wound and a cause of a lot of trouble.

And since it is happening with US support it is a US issue.
Ans most leftards are of the same opinion, which is just plain anti semetism, or at best hatred of Jews everywhere.
This discussion is getting us nowhere. The only thing that would make those people happy is another holocaust, but this time every single Jew everywhere must be eliminated.
You are misunderstanding leftard mentality. They aren't antisemitic. Most of the leftards have nothing at all against Jews. They wouldn't be pleased in the least by eliminating Jews everywhere; they'd be horrified. (Heck, a fair share of anti-Israel leftards are Jewish!)

Moreover, the leftards wouldn't even be happy about another holocaust in Israel. They'd wring their hands over it, deplore it, and condemn the perpetrators for crimes against humanity, before inevitably trotting out a string of excuses for them. No, what the leftards are against is Western civilization. The reason they consistently blame Israeli crimes on Israelis and blame Palestinian crimes on Israelis is because Israelis are Westerners. Do you seriously think the leftards' blatant double standard against Israel would be the slightest bit different if Israel had been colonized by Protestants instead of Jews?
 
It appears that Sweden may at last expel failed asylum seekers per this report here but this would take several years, so perhaps in reality few will actually be repatriated.

However in Europe the word may in such circumstances also means maybe not. I believe a substantial amount may eventually be repatriated.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/sweden-expel-80-000-migrants-015149730.html

Here is an interesting point, where I have been mentioning a lack of security, which we can see has reduced the number of migrants

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

But the media report still seems to be blaming the Swedish authorities for a murder of one of its care workers, for which a teenage migrant was charged.


See

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

The announcement comes after a teenage asylum seeker was arrested on suspicion of murdering a female employee at a youth refugee centre in Molndal, near Gothenburg, earlier this week.

A motive for the stabbing attack was not clear, but her death has led to questions about overcrowded conditions in some centres, with too few adults and employees to look after children, many traumatised by war.


Traumatized is still used as justification for any acts of violence and breaking the law. Perhaps the court may apply the law in sentencing after a fair trial.
Perhaps the insistence of ID checks will reduce the proportion of crimes.
After the end of WW2, there were millions of truly traumatized people in Europe and elsewhere. Very few used that as an excuse to commit crimes.

Also WWI. The Jews who survived the camps didn't go around murdering people. Traumatized is simply a political spin frequently justify pretty much any type of crime where in this case overcrowding and a lack of staff was also weaved in.
 
This is all according to Swedish policy. Sweden all along said that all refugees are guaranteed residency. But that assumes they can prove they really are refugees. Anybody judged as an economic migrant will be sent back (to wherever they're from). So this isn't break from policy. I'm sure many migrants were just hoping that Sweden would expand their generosity to include even them. But I guess not. And I'm fine with this. We're still the country who has taken in the most per capita. So I don't think we have anything to be ashamed about.

But these poor people will have to wait a minimum of two years... probably several years longer... before processed. Because it's very bureaucratic and slow. During this time they're isolated in their camps and forbidden from working. Just a really dumb system.

Here is an interesting point, where I have been mentioning a lack of security, which we can see has reduced the number of migrants

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

But the media report still seems to be blaming the Swedish authorities for a murder of one of its care workers, for which a teenage migrant was charged.

Resources at the state agency is spread thin. They were at their breaking point well before this shit all started. And now it's worse. Shit is bound to happen in these cases. It's a question of funding. Sweden has chosen to have an extremely expensive system for migration while at the same time not funding it enough. Just a lot of dumb fiscal choices all around.

The number of migrant arrivals has dropped sharply since it brought in systematic photo ID checks for travellers earlier this month.

The announcement comes after a teenage asylum seeker was arrested on suspicion of murdering a female employee at a youth refugee centre in Molndal, near Gothenburg, earlier this week.

A motive for the stabbing attack was not clear, but her death has led to questions about overcrowded conditions in some centres, with too few adults and employees to look after children, many traumatised by war.


Traumatized is still used as justification for any acts of violence and breaking the law. Perhaps the court may apply the law in sentencing after a fair trial.
Perhaps the insistence of ID checks will reduce the proportion of crimes.

I don't think it's used as a justification. But lawyers will grasp at any straws to get their clients off. Why wouldn't they try?

The resources for migration may be thin but why drop all necessary security measures? The Swedish tax paper is footing the bill to cover the drive of mass migration into Sweden. It has to recruit more police and possibly more troops to cope with such large numbers.

Re the last sentence the article has already used traumatized as a justification. The courts should not accept such as a justification for such acts.
 
And South Africa would be better off. Only one country in Africa has been improved by the end of colonialism.

Not to point out the obvious but democracy isn't magic. It requires a well educated population for the voters to vote intelligently. You get the voters you deserve. When the whites were in power they didn't care about educating the blacks. So yes, we can blame South Africa's problems today on the whites from back in the apartheid days. They should have seen this day coming a long while off and invested heavily into black education. But they didn't. So we got dumb ass presidents like Jakob "absolute moron" Zuma.

And nothing would have been solved by letting the whites stay in power. They would never have put money into the townships. The only way was this way. Ripping the band-aid off and hoping the country picks itself up. Few things is a mystery once you give it some thought.

Things were improving. Now they're going downhill.
 
After the end of WW2, there were millions of truly traumatized people in Europe and elsewhere. Very few used that as an excuse to commit crimes.

None-the-less, they committed many crimes. To think there was no crime is to be a child.
In comparison to today's so called refugees, it was insignificant. And they didn't have the handouts given them like today. Also most didn't follow a death cult as most do today.
 
I don't agree. There's some sort of assumption here that we know what would have happened if the outside world wouldn't have meddled. If the world community wouldn't have meddled we'd still have apartheid in South Africa

And South Africa would be better off. Only one country in Africa has been improved by the end of colonialism.
While under sanctions SA still managed to prosper. Unlike today which is slowly but surely going down the Zimbawe road.
 
None-the-less, they committed many crimes. To think there was no crime is to be a child.
In comparison to today's so called refugees, it was insignificant. And they didn't have the handouts given them like today. Also most didn't follow a death cult as most do today.

The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe, in which the United States gave $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II
 Marshall Plan.

Nope. No handouts. :rolleyes:
 
So called refugees weren't handed a fully furnished house at the expense of the locals!

No.

It was at the expense of the Americans. :rolleyes:

Actually this was long term thinking where the rebuild of Europe would mean they could afford to purchase American goods.
There is no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to politics.

is is a good scheme. This is what China has done to stimulate trade with Africa. However immigration laws in China are very strict and require letters of invitation to show they are doing business or working on contract. Not so long ago China wrote off all the African nations debts to it, in exchange for increased access to oil and imports of Chinese goods.

The Marshall plan is not comparable to increased volume of people entering from the Middle East and Africa. France gives regular aid to Morocco, Algeria
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom