Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

Attacking the messenger while ignoring the victims is pure evil, much more so than what the Daily Mail, as you perceive it could ever be!

How do you know there were victims? It was published in Daily Mail, so they probably just made it up. Why come to the defence of imaginary victims?

These events took place over a period of years and are still in the courts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This was Syria; in 2011. However I may be wrong as I did not check it yet, because I was watching the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation usually anti-Trump) but the commentators said the 7 countries involved were identified by Obama as security risks.

Kuwait has recently announced the very same policy of stopping anyone from those same 7 countries. Of course it can't be accused of Islamophobia as it is an Islamic country.

The Gulf States and most Arab States seal their airports borders as a standard procedure. No one is permitted without a visa. In most cases British citizens can get a visa stamp at the airport.

Lebanon and Jordan are exceptions who have taken in Syrian refugees but have difficulty taking them in.

As a rule, no one can legally work without first obtaining a work contact before they enter the country and it is approved by the Ministry of Labour.

When the contract is completed the ex employee has his visa cancelled and a month to leave the country. If he remains he is an illegal immigrant and may be hunted down (their words) and detained.

He/She may then be jailed if convicted or simply deported. There are not appeal courts in this matter unless he has been given a job offer. Then he must still leave and wait for a new contract and entry permit from the government.

A person who leaves the job without telling the employee or without a full notice period and does not immediately leave the country he/she is an absconder and has committed a crime.

If someone absconds, or even leaves without a resignation they face a lifetime ban.
His employer must immediately report this to the police and to immigration or he too is charged.

There are thousands of illegal workers in Dubai for instance supplying imported sweatshops from Pakistan and India which the government has cracked down upon. When caught they and their employers face deportation.

Local nationals have strict priority on jobs and some jobs are reserved only for local nationals even if they are not filled.
The UAE does process a small amount of Asylum seekers but this is a temporary measure until they are resettled in a third country.

It must be good news to you that Obama kindly offered to take some Asylum applicants from Australia

 

[DrZoidberg]

How do you know there were victims? It was published in Daily Mail, so they probably just made it up. Why come to the defence of imaginary victims?

These events took place over a period of years and are still in the courts.

Usually there's a kernel of truth to their stories. But which by itself is unremarkable. Then they add details or fail to mention critical details that turns it into something completely different. The fact that the case is in the courts doesn't prove the article is accurate

 

[angelo]

Kuwait has recently announced the very same policy of stopping anyone from those same 7 countries. Of course it can't be accused of Islamophobia as it is an Islamic country.

The Gulf States and most Arab States seal their airports borders as a standard procedure. No one is permitted without a visa. In most cases British citizens can get a visa stamp at the airport.

Lebanon and Jordan are exceptions who have taken in Syrian refugees but have difficulty taking them in.

As a rule, no one can legally work without first obtaining a work contact before they enter the country and it is approved by the Ministry of Labour.

When the contract is completed the ex employee has his visa cancelled and a month to leave the country. If he remains he is an illegal immigrant and may be hunted down (their words) and detained.

He/She may then be jailed if convicted or simply deported. There are not appeal courts in this matter unless he has been given a job offer. Then he must still leave and wait for a new contract and entry permit from the government.

A person who leaves the job without telling the employee or without a full notice period and does not immediately leave the country he/she is an absconder and has committed a crime.

If someone absconds, or even leaves without a resignation they face a lifetime ban.
His employer must immediately report this to the police and to immigration or he too is charged.

There are thousands of illegal workers in Dubai for instance supplying imported sweatshops from Pakistan and India which the government has cracked down upon. When caught they and their employers face deportation.

Local nationals have strict priority on jobs and some jobs are reserved only for local nationals even if they are not filled.
The UAE does process a small amount of Asylum seekers but this is a temporary measure until they are resettled in a third country.

It must be good news to you that Obama kindly offered to take some Asylum applicants from Australia

In the words of one who is hated profoundly by the left: it's a dumb deal, and I don't want those people!

 

[angelo]

These events took place over a period of years and are still in the courts.

Usually there's a kernel of truth to their stories. But which by itself is unremarkable. Then they add details or fail to mention critical details that turns it into something completely different. The fact that the case is in the courts doesn't prove the article is accurate

Of course. Those confounded victims just won't lay down like they're supposed to, how dare they complain! Don't they realise that the " profit" sanctioned rape of infidels?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Usually there's a kernel of truth to their stories. But which by itself is unremarkable. Then they add details or fail to mention critical details that turns it into something completely different. The fact that the case is in the courts doesn't prove the article is accurate

Of course. Those confounded victims just won't lay down like they're supposed to, how dare they complain! Don't they realise that the " profit" sanctioned rape of infidels?

Emotional argumentation much? You're still not providing any new information to strengthen the truth of that article.

What we do have is a large body of articles we know for a fact are bullshit. Every Daily Mail article about Sweden where they've written about stuff I know well or know the source articles they have been absolute nonsense. The only thing they've got right was place names

 

[angelo]

Because you hate the Daily Mail so much, it doesn't mean there's no basis to the story. I suppose the sexual molestations by muslim hoards that took place in Germany over the New Year celebrations are fiction as well!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because you hate the Daily Mail so much, it doesn't mean there's no basis to the story.

Again the argument from emotion. It's not a question of liking something. I fact check articles. Especially tabloid articles. Tabloid journalism in general is notorious. Why would the Daily Mail be special in this regard? The Daily Mail isn't especially bad compared to other tabloids when it comes to honesty.

I don't hate. I just follow the evidence. If the evidence points to the Daily Mail being 99% bullshit I'm going to be skeptical about what they say.

I suppose the sexual molestations by muslim hoards that took place in Germany over the New Year celebrations are fiction as well!

Also, unrelated.

 

[bilby]

Because you hate the Daily Mail so much, it doesn't mean there's no basis to the story. I suppose the sexual molestations by muslim hoards that took place in Germany over the New Year celebrations are fiction as well!

You have it completely backwards.

It's because their stories are baseless that we hate the Daily Mail.

They don't care what's true; just what sells papers and/or promotes their agenda.

No matter what happened in Germany at New Year, you won't get an accurate or reliable account of it from the Daily Mail. If you want others to believe your position, then supporting it with a Mail article is counterproductive. Find a different source.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They don't care what's true; just what sells papers and/or promotes their agenda.
.

Just like any tabloid. This is what they do. It's "news" as entertainment. Part reality but mostly fiction. They use any writerly trick to pull our emotional strings.

If we don't understand what a tabloid is we'll get a warped understanding of the world when we read them.

 

[angelo]

Because you hate the Daily Mail so much, it doesn't mean there's no basis to the story. I suppose the sexual molestations by muslim hoards that took place in Germany over the New Year celebrations are fiction as well!

You have it completely backwards.

It's because their stories are baseless that we hate the Daily Mail.

They don't care what's true; just what sells papers and/or promotes their agenda.

No matter what happened in Germany at New Year, you won't get an accurate or reliable account of it from the Daily Mail. If you want others to believe your position, then supporting it with a Mail article is counterproductive. Find a different source.

Aren't you mistaking sensationalism with honesty of any given story? There's also the saying of 'where there's smoke there's fire.' We all know of storms in a teacup, but I don't consider rape of any form just a storm in a teacup.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You have it completely backwards.

It's because their stories are baseless that we hate the Daily Mail.

They don't care what's true; just what sells papers and/or promotes their agenda.

No matter what happened in Germany at New Year, you won't get an accurate or reliable account of it from the Daily Mail. If you want others to believe your position, then supporting it with a Mail article is counterproductive. Find a different source.

Aren't you mistaking sensationalism with honesty of any given story? There's also the saying of 'where there's smoke there's fire.' We all know of storms in a teacup, but I don't consider rape of any form just a storm in a teacup.

They are exploiting the fact that people think there's a fire where there's smoke. They know their readers are racist. So they're just supplying their readers with stories that confirm their preconceived notions. They'll insert or leave out any information that strengthens it. When it comes to tabloids it's not a question of perspective or different sides of the story. They can write things that are the opposite of the truth. They're just making shit up. The honesty in tabloid stories are hidden so deep it's impossible to niggle out the core of them. They're 100% pure sensationalist.

A good excercise is to take all the keywords from a tabloid article and google them. You'll nearly always find the source. Unless it's stories published in Jihadwatch in which case they're mostly creating stories out of thin air and often inventing non-existent perpetrators. There's quite a few sites out there that specialise in fact checking news articles.

Angelo, do you ever fact check anything you read? There's no need to answer since every time you've published a Daily Mail link of Jihadwatch link a simple googling has made you look foolish. Everybody here knows you don't fact check anything. Why do you do this to yourself? Why don't you check your own facts before posing here? It's not hard. Do you respect our time so little that you don't care if you waste it? I always fact check everything I post here out of respect for my fellow forum members. I suggest you start doing the same. You'll get more friends that way.

 

[angelo]

Do you ever fact check tales on Moslem apologists news sources? No? I thought so!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you ever fact check tales on Moslem apologists news sources? No? I thought so!

Of course I do. I fact check every news story I read. It's not hard today. I'm skeptically minded. Especially when it comes to reports from my own side, because I'm aware of my own biases.

Fact checking is fact checking. It doesn't matter what side you are on, if you fact check properly the result will be the same regardless. Facts doesn't have a side. It doesn't matter how many times Trump repeats it. Facts aren't "facts".

My trust in journalists is not great. Getting to know journalists personally doesn't help increase that trust. Their job is to sell newspapers. Whatever helps doing that will be what they write. There's something called the "public narrative" or "collective subconscious". We're all suckers for group think and people who's salary depends on serving news that validate that group think will of course be what they do. This BTW is all tabloids ever do. And which is why they'll make shit up if that day's news is slow. Which is why you need to fact check the shit out of anything the Daily Mail publishes before repeating it. If you don't you're an idiot. There's no polite way to say that.

Today's main public discourses are the alt-right and the liberal left. The alt-right live up to the classic fascist narrative. It works now for the same reason it did in the 1930'ies. While the liberal left thinks the alt-right proponents are idiots, sociopaths or both. Both of these sides are completely wrong about the other side. Because public discourses are laughably simplistic. They're comfort blankets we snuggle under. They help us form bonds with others on "our side". They're modern myths, that fill the same function as any religious myth did in the past. But we need to understand how these modern myths work and corrupt our understanding of the world. If you don't you'll just be a willing easily manipulated tool for evil. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[angelo]

Exactly how many times have you fact checked items from jihad watch? Isn't it true that because Robert Spencer reports on something you automatically ignore it?

 

[Warpoet]

Exactly how many times have you fact checked items from jihad watch? Isn't it true that because Robert Spencer reports on something you automatically ignore it?

Why the fuck shouldn't he? Stop trying to equate reputable news outlets to nutjob lunatic hate sites like Jihad Watch.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Exactly how many times have you fact checked items from jihad watch? Isn't it true that because Robert Spencer reports on something you automatically ignore it?

Every time you post here. And every time it's obvious that you didn't. Unless you post articles I won't read Jihadwatch because I have no reason to. I wouldn't know who Robert Spencer was if it wasn't for you. But thanks to you I know that he's a conspiracy theory nutcase. But here's the rub. So do you. You've read the fact checking posts in response to yours. And you've never had a solid response. We've pulled down your pants time and time again. And you just keep posting. We'll keep pulling down your pants and you'll keep be made a fool of.

I don't read blogs (it's a blog) that is nothing more than the mouthpiece of one single conspiracy theory lunatic. Jihadwatch articles have no substance. I tend to gravitate towards reputable news sources. If I want to read fiction there are more entertaining works of fiction than Jihadwatch.

 

[TSwizzle]

An asylum seeker has been detained after he allegedly launched a string of sex attacks on 18 women during a single two-hour train journey. The 23-year-old migrant is suspected of groping the women on a suburban S-Bahn German train line between Munich and Herrsching on January 29. The Eritrean-born attacker is said to have gone from one carriage to the next touching female passengers.

DailyMail

Another highly skilled worker that is also a sex pest. Europe needs more of this type.

 

[DrZoidberg]

An asylum seeker has been detained after he allegedly launched a string of sex attacks on 18 women during a single two-hour train journey. The 23-year-old migrant is suspected of groping the women on a suburban S-Bahn German train line between Munich and Herrsching on January 29. The Eritrean-born attacker is said to have gone from one carriage to the next touching female passengers.

DailyMail

Another highly skilled worker that is also a sex pest. Europe needs more of this type.

When I Google the keywords I get five hits. One is Daily Mail.

Another is this. A site which automatically generates news articles based on stuff it randomly finds on the web.

http://www.todayevery.com/share/ryk...d-abusing-18-women-train.html/article-4204256

And three more German local newspapers.

Here's my verdict. Complete bullshit.

Also, even if true is it news? We have no reason to believe Eritreans sexually harass women more than Germans do. So why is it an article. Don't you think it might have been posted because it plays on racist sentiments?

Why did you post it? Did you post it because you thought the article proved or demonstrated something? What in that case?

 

[TSwizzle]

Drawing on a unique, new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we can throw new light on what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries. Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

ChathamHouse


"Striking and sobering" but hardly surprising.