Europe submits voluntarily

[bilby]

Would you dismiss warnings about population unchecked population growth and resource usage as "presumptious paranoia" and irrational fear of "people who haven't been born yet"?

Absolutely. Because such fears are EXACTLY THAT.

Or worries about emissions as unfounded fear of cars that haven't been made yet? Or calls to regulate big investment banks as phobia of bad loans that don't even exist yet?

Neither of these examples are analogous to the situation regarding immigration.

 

[Jayjay]

The fact that most of the recent troublemakers in Paris and Brussels were second or third generation immigrants should be a data point against the hypothesis that muslims will automatically moderate themselves when settling in Europe.

You can pretend all you want that this violence is not an aftershock of the US invasion.

These massive crimes, this blowback, is a reason you don't carry out bigger crimes and attack other nations.

And trade Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

Unless you have a time machine, fingerpointing doesn't fix the problem. Note the relative absence of similar extremism in US: America must be doing something right.

 

[Jayjay]

Absolutely. Because such fears are EXACTLY THAT.

Or worries about emissions as unfounded fear of cars that haven't been made yet? Or calls to regulate big investment banks as phobia of bad loans that don't even exist yet?

Neither of these examples are analogous to the situation regarding immigration.

But they are analogous to long term problems that we haven't quite solved yet, and our best course of action is to just slow down until we can. Which is what I think is the solution for immigration as well. Learn from countries that do it right, and focus on the long-term sustainability rather than short-term gain.

Thomas Malthus or the Rome Club would have disagreed with you about the population growth fears.

 

[bilby]

Absolutely. Because such fears are EXACTLY THAT.Neither of these examples are analogous to the situation regarding immigration.

But they are analogous to long term problems that we haven't quite solved yet, and our best course of action is to just slow down until we can. Which is what I think is the solution for immigration as well. Learn from countries that do it right, and focus on the long-term sustainability rather than short-term gain.

Thomas Malthus or the Rome Club would have disagreed with you about the population growth fears.

Yes, and they would be WRONG. But that's a discussion for elsewhere.

 

[untermensche]

You can pretend all you want that this violence is not an aftershock of the US invasion.

These massive crimes, this blowback, is a reason you don't carry out bigger crimes and attack other nations.

And trade Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

Unless you have a time machine, fingerpointing doesn't fix the problem. Note the relative absence of similar extremism in US: America must be doing something right.

There has not been a massive invasion and decade long military occupation that included widespread random torture in the US either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pure unadulterated bullshit!! Simply blaming the West alla Noam Chomsky is bullshit and if you look at islams history you'd know it.

At least you have heard of Chomsky.

The US attack of Iraq gave us ISIS.

It therefore gave us the Paris and now the Brussels attack.

Continuing to stick your head in the sand about the fact that ISIS originated in Syria and not Iraq won't make it go away.

- - - Updated - - -

You can twist the data to suit any ideology, but the facts are that if there were no backward moslems living in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, there would still be the odd terrorist attack every now and then, but the scale of attacks happening practically every other day wouldn't happen. No moslems, no deaths!

Jeez, you really never do get tired of being clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong, do you?

Attacks do NOT happen anywhere CLOSE to 'one every other day'.

And unless you have evidence that Anders Brevik, or the guys in ETA, or the IRA, or the red Army Faction, were Muslims, your "No moslems, no deaths!" idea is utterly stupid. Even if it were true (and it clearly isn't), it wouldn't be very helpful in guiding our behaviour. If there were no humans in Europe, there would be no deaths there from terrorism - but that's really not a very helpful observation, despite having the great advantage (over your claim) of being actually true.

Mostly the things that don't kill don't get reported.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Unless you have a time machine, fingerpointing doesn't fix the problem. Note the relative absence of similar extremism in US: America must be doing something right.

There has not been a massive invasion and decade long military occupation that included widespread random torture in the US either.

...Not since most of the Indians were systematically wiped out.

 

[Jayjay]

Unless you have a time machine, fingerpointing doesn't fix the problem. Note the relative absence of similar extremism in US: America must be doing something right.

There has not been a massive invasion and decade long military occupation that included widespread random torture in the US either.

And this makes it different from France or Belgium how?

 

[bilby]

At least you have heard of Chomsky.

The US attack of Iraq gave us ISIS.

It therefore gave us the Paris and now the Brussels attack.

Continuing to stick your head in the sand about the fact that ISIS originated in Syria and not Iraq won't make it go away.

- - - Updated - - -

You can twist the data to suit any ideology, but the facts are that if there were no backward moslems living in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, there would still be the odd terrorist attack every now and then, but the scale of attacks happening practically every other day wouldn't happen. No moslems, no deaths!

Jeez, you really never do get tired of being clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong, do you?

Attacks do NOT happen anywhere CLOSE to 'one every other day'.

And unless you have evidence that Anders Brevik, or the guys in ETA, or the IRA, or the red Army Faction, were Muslims, your "No moslems, no deaths!" idea is utterly stupid. Even if it were true (and it clearly isn't), it wouldn't be very helpful in guiding our behaviour. If there were no humans in Europe, there would be no deaths there from terrorism - but that's really not a very helpful observation, despite having the great advantage (over your claim) of being actually true.

Mostly the things that don't kill don't get reported.

Like the unicorns that are invisible. They don't get reported either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Australian news crew is attacked in Sweden:

The film crew was there with Lars Sjunesson and Avpixlat. Famous racists. And off camera. No shit people got annoyed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops saw what they were up to and wanted no part of it. These guys are total cunts. Lars Sjunesson is a raving lunatic.

It's interesting that the film crew went looking for the most racist Swedes they could find and asked them to show them around. My money is that the film crew got exactly the footage they had been promised.

This is pure media manipulation

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/nej-polisen-har-inte-kastat-in-handduken/

Now the Swedish police has made a statement. The police weren't there for the film teams protection. They were there because somebody had called them in the vicinity and they'd taken a report. They left because someone else had called the police and the cops went there instead. At no point had the team requested police protection and there was no reason to think they'd get into trouble simply by just being white journalists.

They also added that Sjuneson is notorious for such media manipulations involving the police. This is not the first time he's done similar things. The police who was called in weren't aware of Sjuneson's reputation and if they'd known that he was about to try to annoy and provoke people of colour they would have stayed. Not so much for the protection of the team, but for the protection of the people they'd be harassing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The film crew was there with Lars Sjunesson and Avpixlat. Famous racists. And off camera. No shit people got annoyed. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops saw what they were up to and wanted no part of it. These guys are total cunts. Lars Sjunesson is a raving lunatic.

It's interesting that the film crew went looking for the most racist Swedes they could find and asked them to show them around. My money is that the film crew got exactly the footage they had been promised.

This is pure media manipulation

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/nej-polisen-har-inte-kastat-in-handduken/

Now the Swedish police has made a statement. The police weren't there for the film teams protection. They were there because somebody had called them in the vicinity and they'd taken a report. They left because someone else had called the police and the cops went there instead. At no point had the team requested police protection and there was no reason to think they'd get into trouble simply by just being white journalists.

They also added that Sjuneson is notorious for such media manipulations involving the police. This is not the first time he's done similar things. The police who was called in weren't aware of Sjuneson's reputation and if they'd known that he was about to try to annoy and provoke people of colour they would have stayed. Not so much for the protection of the team, but for the protection of the people they'd be harassing.

The English translation through freetranslation.com is not perfect. This could well be caused by Media manipulation. However in this scene local people intervened to stop this escalating.
Media groups often try to create events to create news so you could be right. However who were these people who were reacting. However this is still speculative. Further why did these people start putting on masks and attacking? We can only speculate.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why should they make a political party? They aren't going to get their will through the ballot box.

Ballot box ? muslims don't need no stinking ballot box ! The handover is already under way in Europe. While the navel gazing liberals were inspecting the lint and wondering about which bathroom the transgender eight year old should be using at school, the halal meals were being ushered in on the quiet to muslims and infidels alike.

Islam as the dominant religion and largest group is on its way to Europe. Mass immigration started this process.
The only question is how will Europe change as an Islamic society. Will Islam move in the direction Christianity did or will it move backwards.
Will the new majority Muslim politicians vote to abolish homosexuality and remove the religious status of all other religions. Will it be a crime to be an atheist?
Perhaps we may be lucky.
Having recently read through UAE Contract Law which is governed by the Sharia Maxim of good faith in contracts, the rights of employees and tenants if enforced are very fair.
In addition the disadvantaged party (e.g. employee) has a right to see the full contract well in advance of a start date. In reality due to a care for human rights (mostly from agencies working from third world countries, such rights are not pursued.
While Sharia Law says the Man takes half the inheritance, it also says that he must then share his half with the wife and family who already have portion of the 50 per cent.
Meanwhile as more pour in, the likelihood of an Islamic Europe is more reacl than it was 5 years ago.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you are opposed to immigration because you are scared of people who haven't even been born yet?

That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia.

There is a simple reason why second and third generation immigrants are easier to radicalize than their immigrant forebears - Racism.

That's simplistic, not simple. Racism isn't the root cause. It's mostly a reaction to societal problems, and the true causes are structural. For one reason or another, some societies are abysmal at integrating new immigrants. US is pretty good at it, some European countries are okayish, some have failed miserably. I have no confidence in my own country's ability to do any better than France, Beligum or Sweden have in the past. And now they have huge problems which are likely to be the norm in about a generation.

it's not about being afraid of people, it's about being concerned about societal problems that we haven't figured out how to deal with yet (or aren't willing to deal with for some reason). Would you dismiss warnings about population unchecked population growth and resource usage as "presumptious paranoia" and irrational fear of "people who haven't been born yet"? Or worries about emissions as unfounded fear of cars that haven't been made yet? Or calls to regulate big investment banks as phobia of bad loans that don't even exist yet?

Well, racism is the normal. We are naturally afraid of that which we don't know. To not be a racist/xenophobe always requires a lot work. History proves this as well as research. Basically, the hippies got it wrong.

Yes, Sweden sucks at integration. But the countries that are the best at integration are those that historically had a lot of immigration and trade hubs where different cultures met a lot. From this we can deduce that there's nothing to be afraid of. Eventually Sweden will work it out, ie get tired of wasting money on stuff for zero benefit to anyone.

 

[Bomb#20]

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

It does. 20 or 30 years down the line.

So you are opposed to immigration because you are scared of people who haven't even been born yet?

That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia.

There is a simple reason why second and third generation immigrants are easier to radicalize than their immigrant forebears - Racism.

New immigrants are escaping from somewhere they don't want to be, to get to somewhere they think will be better - and usually they are correct. ...

But his children and grandchildren grow up in Europe, as Europeans; They don't see themselves as outsiders or incomers, they are just treated as lesser beings by the racists for no reason other than an accident of parentage over which they had zero influence. Even so, despite being told to 'Go back where you came from' in their own home towns; despite being abused, assaulted, or shunned by their neighbours, most of them still are not radicalized. But it is no shock that a few are tempted by Imams who tell them how great things were back in the Middle East (or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or wherever), and how they are really Gods chosen people, and are being abused and looked down on by people who are beneath them. Their immigrant parents and grandparents would never fall for that shtick; ... But the kids and grandkids don't know about that; all they know is that the white guys won't give them a break ... The children could not understand why their parents so loved a country where they were clearly despised. They didn't want to become terrorists; but they didn't want to be English first, and Bangladeshi second. Denied an identity by the English, they instead embraced their identity as Bangladeshis (albeit in a way that would be very puzzling to people still in Bangladesh) - to the detriment of both communities.

So you explain, cogently and clearly, exactly what cause-and-effect sequence of events makes something very bad happen -- right after you call expecting that bad thing to happen "seriously presumptuous paranoia".

That's some seriously presumptuous schizophrenia, dude.

 

[bilby]

And also a data point against the hypothesis that limiting immigration could help to prevent such attacks.

It does. 20 or 30 years down the line.

So you are opposed to immigration because you are scared of people who haven't even been born yet?

That's some seriously presumptuous paranoia.

There is a simple reason why second and third generation immigrants are easier to radicalize than their immigrant forebears - Racism.

New immigrants are escaping from somewhere they don't want to be, to get to somewhere they think will be better - and usually they are correct. ...

But his children and grandchildren grow up in Europe, as Europeans; They don't see themselves as outsiders or incomers, they are just treated as lesser beings by the racists for no reason other than an accident of parentage over which they had zero influence. Even so, despite being told to 'Go back where you came from' in their own home towns; despite being abused, assaulted, or shunned by their neighbours, most of them still are not radicalized. But it is no shock that a few are tempted by Imams who tell them how great things were back in the Middle East (or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or wherever), and how they are really Gods chosen people, and are being abused and looked down on by people who are beneath them. Their immigrant parents and grandparents would never fall for that shtick; ... But the kids and grandkids don't know about that; all they know is that the white guys won't give them a break ... The children could not understand why their parents so loved a country where they were clearly despised. They didn't want to become terrorists; but they didn't want to be English first, and Bangladeshi second. Denied an identity by the English, they instead embraced their identity as Bangladeshis (albeit in a way that would be very puzzling to people still in Bangladesh) - to the detriment of both communities.

So you explain, cogently and clearly, exactly what cause-and-effect sequence of events makes something very bad happen -- right after you call expecting that bad thing to happen "seriously presumptuous paranoia".

That's some seriously presumptuous schizophrenia, dude.

No, just optimism.

I explained why it happened in the past; I assume that when we know why something bad happened in the past, we might take steps to prevent it from happening in the future. Without chucking the baby out with the bath water.

If lots of single vehicle crashes occur on a particular section of road, and it is known that this is due to people not being aware of a hazard at that spot, closing the road entirely is a poor solution. Once the cause is known, you can either remove the hazard, or add a warning sign; it is stupid and unnecessary to close the road - even if that would achieve the immediate goal of eliminating the crashes.

 

[angelo]

Pure unadulterated bullshit!! Simply blaming the West alla Noam Chomsky is bullshit and if you look at islams history you'd know it.

At least you have heard of Chomsky.

The US attack of Iraq gave us ISIS.

It therefore gave us the Paris and now the Brussels attack.

Chomsky is a left wing nut job who would be beheaded or at best thrown into a jail to rot were he to live anywhere else but a Western Democracy!

 

[angelo]

You can twist the data to suit any ideology, but the facts are that if there were no backward moslems living in Europe or anywhere else for that matter, there would still be the odd terrorist attack every now and then, but the scale of attacks happening practically every other day wouldn't happen. No moslems, no deaths!

Jeez, you really never do get tired of being clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong, do you?

Attacks do NOT happen anywhere CLOSE to 'one every other day'.

And unless you have evidence that Anders Brevik, or the guys in ETA, or the IRA, or the red Army Faction, were Muslims, your "No moslems, no deaths!" idea is utterly stupid. Even if it were true (and it clearly isn't), it wouldn't be very helpful in guiding our behaviour. If there were no humans in Europe, there would be no deaths there from terrorism - but that's really not a very helpful observation, despite having the great advantage (over your claim) of being actually true.

Clutching at straws now are we!

 

[bilby]

Jeez, you really never do get tired of being clearly, obviously and demonstrably wrong, do you?

Attacks do NOT happen anywhere CLOSE to 'one every other day'.

And unless you have evidence that Anders Brevik, or the guys in ETA, or the IRA, or the red Army Faction, were Muslims, your "No moslems, no deaths!" idea is utterly stupid. Even if it were true (and it clearly isn't), it wouldn't be very helpful in guiding our behaviour. If there were no humans in Europe, there would be no deaths there from terrorism - but that's really not a very helpful observation, despite having the great advantage (over your claim) of being actually true.

Clutching at straws now are we!

How is pointing out gross errors of fact even remotely able to be characterised as "clutching at straws"?

You are wrong on pretty much every factual point you have attempted in this thread. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you; people have provided evidence to show where and how you are wrong. Yet you continue to make utterly false claims that have no bearing in reality; and now you are making meta-errors - you are saying demonstrably false things about the nature of the arguments used to rebut your nonsense.

Right now, your only smart move would be to shut up; every post you make simply adds to the vast pile of evidence in this thread that you don't care about the truth, and only care about pushing your unevidenced and fallacious opinions.

I am just grateful that I am not on the same side of this debate as you; those who agree with your conclusions must cringe when you post yet another easily refuted claim, that serves only to weaken your argument.

 

[angelo]

Clutching at straws now are we!

How is pointing out gross errors of fact even remotely able to be characterised as "clutching at straws"?

You are wrong on pretty much every factual point you have attempted in this thread. Clearly and demonstrably wrong. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you; people have provided evidence to show where and how you are wrong. Yet you continue to make utterly false claims that have no bearing in reality; and now you are making meta-errors - you are saying demonstrably false things about the nature of the arguments used to rebut your nonsense.

Right now, your only smart move would be to shut up; every post you make simply adds to the vast pile of evidence in this thread that you don't care about the truth, and only care about pushing your unevidenced and fallacious opinions.

I am just grateful that I am not on the same side of this debate as you; those who agree with your conclusions must cringe when you post yet another easily refuted claim, that serves only to weaken your argument.

Refute my claims that islam has grown not by people voluntarily converting to the death cult, but by the sword?
That in Saudi Arabia where this death cult originated from, hasn't got one xtian, Jew, or any other kafir left. That Egypt and most of North Africa, the Middle East, Iraq, and any other moslem majority country except Saudi Arabia where Kafirs either had to convert to islam or suffer the consequences, are either close to extinction or already dead. Islam has no tolerance of any other religion except it's own death cult. Even then, you have Sunni fighting Shia muslims.

 

[faded_Glory]

I don't know about Nevada, but in the UK it is precisely through the ballot box that people get their will.

The Islamists have no hope of getting what they want voted in.

I'm glad we agree on that. This also brings some necessary perspective to how we should perceive the threat of Islam in Europe: Europe is not about to be Islamised, not any time soon.