Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

The laws that govern ordinary law obeying people should not apply to savages such as these. Do they allow for the rights of innocent citizens when they murder women and children indiscriminately?

The "laws that govern ordinary law obeying people" already govern serial murderers and child rapists.

Anyhow, which government agency do you want to entrust with the power to decide who is and who isn't to be treated as a "savage" - absent even any evidence that would hold up in court?

Do you prefer your country to stoop to the level of "those savages"?

Be specific!

(Half points for almost staying on point - much better than I expected of you, to be honest.)

This discussion is about letting these barbarians back after they've left the country's that gave them asylum to murder and torture in the name of their barbaric ideology, thereby giving up all rights to any laws that exists in statute books!

You're back to your usual routine of not answering the question at all.

How can you describe someone born in the country as a citizen of the country as having been given asylum?

Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

 

[Derec]

If advocating the peaceful transition of Britain into an Islamic republic qualifies as treason,

It is in fact a much more serious threat than terrorism because it is so insidious. It only requires Europe to do nothing while the percentage of Muslims steadily increases until they have enough power to impose their ideology at the ballot box. Hell, London is already ruled by a follower of Islam who of course wants to bring as many of his coreligionists to Britain.

- - - Updated - - -

So called Muslim "refugees" attacking Christian refugees.
In Sweden, Christian Fleeing Persecution Face Violence All Over Again

 

[Jokodo]

If advocating the peaceful transition of Britain into an Islamic republic qualifies as treason,

It is in fact a much more serious threat than terrorism because it is so insidious. It only requires Europe to do nothing while the percentage of Muslims steadily increases until they have enough power to impose their ideology at the ballot box.

We went through this two-and-a-half years ago: The only calculation under which the percentage of Muslims steadily increases is the one based on the one-drop-rule: If any one of your ancestors was Muslim, you're counted as such no matter what you believe (and even that one only with an arbitrary cutoff at, say, 1950 or 1900: Given how close Europe is to the Middle East and how long Islam has been around, strictly speaking 100% of Europeans would qualify without one). dystopian has linked data from the Netherlands that show that the number of actual, self-identified Muslims has been dropping consistently for over a decade.

Hell, London is already ruled by a follower of Islam who of course wants to bring as many of his coreligionists to Britain.

Even you can do better than this.

- - - Updated - - -

So called Muslim "refugees" attacking Christian refugees.
In Sweden, Christian Fleeing Persecution Face Violence All Over Again

Yes, that's a problem. But not one solved by closing the door to refugees -- if you read carefully, you'll note that many of the victims are recent converts to Christianity. Fundamentalist Islam is traditionally much more accepting of Christians from a traditional Christian background than of converts (or as they would call them "apostates"). Closing the doors to Muslim refugees will probably mean keeping these people out too, and thus keeping them in even bigger danger: Even if it's possible to determine whether someone is a member of e.g. Syria's or Iraq's traditional Christian minority (and it's doubtful that even that is possible in all cases), anyone can claim to have converted, so you won't be able to keep out Muslims without keeping out converts too. Instead a step towards a solution would have to involve better, smaller quarters, better oversight, quicker integration where people start to move into their own homes, etc., and of course having the law deal with attackers as individuals.

 

[Bomb#20]

If countries don't have rights, we can slash all treason statutes right away. Treason is per definition a crime against a country, not against people:

In the UK treason is per definition a crime against the Queen, and if Prince Philip has a mistress on the side then if she's British she's a traitor. I expect we can agree that like any crime that's been on the books since the middle ages, countries' definitions of treason are apt to be on the archaic side. It may well be that the crime of "treason" per se should be abolished and replaced with more specific and metaphysically coherent felonies, just as has happened to many other traditional crimes. The moral substance of treason law is that your countrymen have the right to have you not help the people shooting at them.

It's still treason if you believe that the enemy's plans are going to be more beneficial for the people of your country than your government's.

And it's still murder if you believe you're giving the child you're drowning eternal life and saving him from going to hell. A court would get to take judicial notice of the fact that it isn't reasonable for you to believe having Nazis shoot at your countrymen is good for them.

I actually agree with much of what you're saying here. I'm not arguing that advocacy for any position, however far from the current mainstream consensus of your country, should ever be construable as treason. When you chimed in, I was, however, responding to Vork who gave "openly saying that they want to replace the system of government with a foreign religious system" as an example of "blatantly traitorous actions" by immigrants. My use of the phrase is a direct quote of his.

Fair enough. He was wrong too.

(And no, they're not advocating to vote to join Germany. They're mostly hiding that part of their ideology in public, knowing full well that public support for the nationhood of Austria, while a minority position right after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary when most German-speaking Austrians wanted to join Germany, has grown to levels of 90-ish% by the end of the 20th century, trend still pointing up.)

Well, Google didn't tell me any of that, which of course it wouldn't if they're hiding that part of their ideology in public, so I can't either confirm or refute that part of the accusation.

Some minor qualifiers, though:

They got one of themselves ordered disbanded by the government for being discovered to have written something Naziish twenty years ago.

Out of interest though: Did you research this tidbit on the fly for the purposes of writing this post, or did the Germania Wiener Neustadt make it to the news in California?

No, I'd just never heard of "Burschenschaften", so I googled it and a Guardian article about Austria dissolving a college frat was the second headline.

Every nation is an accident of history.

Of course. Some nuance was lost in translation though: Maybe I should have said they refer to Austria as a miscarriage of history.

The U.S. is a miscarriage of history. If the British hadn't been so idiotically intransigent we could have skipped the Revolution, and then abolished slavery in the 1830s along with the rest of the British empire without killing 600,000 people over it. Would it really have been that hard to give us 13 MPs?

 

[metacristi]

If advocating the peaceful transition of Britain into an Islamic republic qualifies as treason,

It is in fact a much more serious threat than terrorism because it is so insidious. It only requires Europe to do nothing while the percentage of Muslims steadily increases until they have enough power to impose their ideology at the ballot box. Hell, London is already ruled by a follower of Islam who of course wants to bring as many of his coreligionists to Britain.

Indeed so, this even if only some important values of Enlightenment are dropped. Actually one can put forward a strong argument that this minimal scenario is very likely if muslim population increase in Europe and no important criticism of Islam is allowed. Now I can understand that some may think differently but the problem is that these days the fashion is to try to discredit all those putting forward this kind of arguments as being 'fascists' and ''bigots' (I know this first hand on this site as well, being banned just because some people do not know the rules of good argumentation). The snag with this view is of course that one can put forward a viable argument that Islam is a form of proto-fascism and that ultimately even those who argue rationally that the Islamic world has experienced an Islamic Enlightenment recognize that 'it was different from what happened in Europe'. In fact the modernization of Islam was shallow and easily reversible, this being the main explanation that basically the entire Islamic world signed The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam at the end of the 20th century.

The evasion tactics with 'they only play lip service to sharia and islam' cannot hide the fact that the scenario you present above is very probable, just look how the liberal forces are extremely weak all over the Islamic world and without any prospects to keep in check the advent of Islam in public area (the obsession of some to apply western categories like 'the Left' and so to Islamic countries is doomed to failure if they do not take in account the distinctive nature of islam and that the Islamic worldview still 'permeates' basically everything). In my view we have to change the tactics, minimally Islam have to be criticized in important ways (I mean rational criticism, without a return to the excesses of the colonial era). In reality it is perfectly rational to advocate radical change in Islam (even if, unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam is not easily amenable to that), not ultimately because empowering the forces of progress cannot be done without developing a healthy self-criticism in the Islamic communities.

I am from a cuntry where many people declare themselves as being Christians but when you ask some of them you can see that they can be also very critical of clergy (for example strongly oppose their political ambitions), they do not go to the Church, and if you push them enough they will recognize that ultimately they believe that there is something out there, a God, even if not exactly what Christianity says. I would say that we have to force the same in Islam, in the open, instead of protecting the forces who uphold the inerrancy of the Quran (just because muslims want so, a vast majority of muslims still defend that view, some surely because they have to hide) we should do better by empowering the forces who advocate a radical change (basically the counterpart of Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity), this even if the Islam of the last 1400 may completely disappear. It is true that nothing give us the certitude that this policy will be successful but I'd say it is preferable to a 'peaceful' submission on long term to Islamic mores, if history shows something this is that it is very difficult to escape from the Islamic collective aberrations via efforts coming entirely from inside.

 

[Jokodo]

In the UK treason is per definition a crime against the Queen, and if Prince Philip has a mistress on the side then if she's British she's a traitor. I expect we can agree that like any crime that's been on the books since the middle ages, countries' definitions of treason are apt to be on the archaic side. It may well be that the crime of "treason" per se should be abolished and replaced with more specific and metaphysically coherent felonies, just as has happened to many other traditional crimes. The moral substance of treason law is that your countrymen have the right to have you not help the people shooting at them.

Everyone, not just your countrymen, has a right to have you not help the people shooting at them.

I believe the relevant charge is called "accomplice to murder" or something like that.

 

[angelo]

This discussion is about letting these barbarians back after they've left the country's that gave them asylum to murder and torture in the name of their barbaric ideology, thereby giving up all rights to any laws that exists in statute books!

You're back to your usual routine of not answering the question at all.

How can you describe someone born in the country as a citizen of the country as having been given asylum?

Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

I'm aware that many recruits to ISIS etc are from second and even third generation muzzie immigrants. But having gone to join these barbaric sub human groups means they have denounced their country of birth and therefore given up any rights or privileges afforded them by the West.

 

[angelo]

Meanwhile, straight from the horses mouth, this in answer to some who posted here and strongly denied such zones didn't exit, that "NO GO ZONES" don't exist. Does this mean that imam Angela Merkel is now Islamophobic?

https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/merkel-admits-zones.html/

 

[metacristi]

Some never tire to remind us that muslims are a minority in Europe and that demographic projections are notoriously unreliable. No one deny the first of course (yet in the wake of extreme violence seen these days in Europe one is entirely justified to fear of what could happen if muslims ever gain again important political and military power). And the latter may be also true but we must never forget that it cuts both ways, finally I don't think the evidence we have at this time make the possible conjectures equally probable, especially when we think on medium and long run (for example it is projected that 'Islam could represent the majority religion for those below 15 years of age in 2051' in Austria, 40% 14 year children in Switzerland will be muslims by the end of the century, the muslim population could even triple in Western Europe by 2050 if current high muslim immigration continues, becoming 30% of total population in Sweden, 17% in the UK, and so on).

If even a scholar like Bernard Lewis warns that Europe could fall under the influence of Islamic mores by the end of the century is far from being without support (if the status quo is preserved, including the fact that Europe basically ceased to defend its own civilisation). It may take more time of course but this is does not change the essence of the problem we face. In reality we must be prepared for the worst, I don't think that we can rely on the fact that second generation muslims and so on are more moderate than their ancestors (the current wave of violence and return toward the past in Islam shows rather the contrary), finally merely appeasing the same Islam promoting the inerrancy of the Quran do not make them more than passive carriers of the same old violent and discriminatory ideas which could, in some circumstances, be easily revived in full. If we want to create a better world we must keep the secular 'Ship of Theseus' recognizable on long term in the future, unfortunately I don't think this is possible with the kind of policies Europe promotes today, sadly not 'anything goes' as we are let today to believe. Definitely not the Islam of the last 1400 years, overlooking the big cultural differences it introduces leads nowhere.

 

[Jokodo]

This discussion is about letting these barbarians back after they've left the country's that gave them asylum to murder and torture in the name of their barbaric ideology, thereby giving up all rights to any laws that exists in statute books!

You're back to your usual routine of not answering the question at all.

How can you describe someone born in the country as a citizen of the country as having been given asylum?

Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

I'm aware that many recruits to ISIS etc are from second and even third generation muzzie immigrants. But having gone to join these barbaric sub human groups means they have denounced their country of birth and therefore given up any rights or privileges afforded them by the West.

I hate to repeat myself, but:


Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"? or if you prefer: Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "any rights or privileges afforded them by the West"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

Those questions are right there in the post you ostensibly replied to.

 

[angelo]

I'm aware that many recruits to ISIS etc are from second and even third generation muzzie immigrants. But having gone to join these barbaric sub human groups means they have denounced their country of birth and therefore given up any rights or privileges afforded them by the West.

I hate to repeat myself, but:


Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"? or if you prefer: Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "any rights or privileges afforded them by the West"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

Those questions are right there in the post you ostensibly replied to.

Many including myself would think the risk of some future government using such powers are worth it if it stops these sub humans from returning to Europe today!

 

[Jokodo]

I'm aware that many recruits to ISIS etc are from second and even third generation muzzie immigrants. But having gone to join these barbaric sub human groups means they have denounced their country of birth and therefore given up any rights or privileges afforded them by the West.

I hate to repeat myself, but:


Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "all rights to any laws"? or if you prefer: Which government agency do you trust to decide who has and hasn't given up "any rights or privileges afforded them by the West"?

How do you know giving such powers to the government won't be used against you or your children (if you have any) in the future?

Those questions are right there in the post you ostensibly replied to.

Many including myself would think the risk of some future government using such powers are worth it if it stops these sub humans from returning to Europe today!

So you're willing to give up all legal protections for citizens to potentially avoid a few dozen deaths. I assume you are unwilling to lower the speed limit on highways to 60 km/h and ban cars from inside cities to avoid a few thousand deaths.

Explain!

 

[Jokodo]

Annual tobacco related deaths in Australia: estimated 15,000, many of which non-smokers -- estimates for the death toll of secondhand smoke alone range from the low hundred to the low thousands.
angelo: "there's nothing we can do about that"
Annual alcohol related deaths in Australia: estimated 5-6,000.
angelo: "let's raise a pint to that"
Annual road fatalities in Australia: between 1,200 and roughly 2,000.
angelo: "traffic rules are strict enough as they are. Those bastards just want to pull money out of our pockets!"

Annual terrorism deaths in Australia: 0.3 (including assailants).
angelo: "the end is nigh! We have to give the government the power to strip of all their rights anyone vaguely suspected of diffusely sympathising with the terrorists, and to decide over life and death based on a hunch, or we'll all be dead soon!"

Spot the logic error.

ETA: And I'm saying this as a smoker, and as someone who likes his pint or two, or half a dozen of them, as much as the other guy. I fully admit that I and my like represent a hazard to public safety many times more severe than terrorism -- and I don't even feel particularly bad about it. Many times more than almost zero is still a very small number, you know?

Also a disclaimer: I'm using the moniker "angelo" as a stand in for the generic right-winger. I don't know this particular angelo's stances on smoking of traffic rules, though I suspect they aren't far from what I'm illustrating above.

 

[Jokodo]

As we speak, listeria contaminated melons have killed more Australians in the last two weeks than terrorists in the last 3 years.

So, if you're already all about banning stuff for safety, get your priorities straight:

1. Smoking
2. Alcohol
3. Cars
...
262. Melons
...
3156. Muslims.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Meanwhile, straight from the horses mouth, this in answer to some who posted here and strongly denied such zones didn't exit, that "NO GO ZONES" don't exist. Does this mean that imam Angela Merkel is now Islamophobic?

https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/merkel-admits-zones.html/

This is reproducing something from Faux Noise:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/01/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-go-zones-exist-in-germany.html

Unfortunately, Faux doesn't link to the original. (However, the original is unlikely to be in English anyway.)

 

[Jokodo]

Meanwhile, straight from the horses mouth, this in answer to some who posted here and strongly denied such zones didn't exit, that "NO GO ZONES" don't exist. Does this mean that imam Angela Merkel is now Islamophobic?

https://gellerreport.com/2018/03/merkel-admits-zones.html/

This is reproducing something from Faux Noise:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/01/angela-merkel-admits-that-no-go-zones-exist-in-germany.html

Unfortunately, Faux doesn't link to the original. (However, the original is unlikely to be in English anyway.)

The only German language sources I can find are quoting English sources. It's probably made up altogether.

 

[Bomb#20]

In the UK treason is per definition a crime against the Queen, and if Prince Philip has a mistress on the side then if she's British she's a traitor. I expect we can agree that like any crime that's been on the books since the middle ages, countries' definitions of treason are apt to be on the archaic side. It may well be that the crime of "treason" per se should be abolished and replaced with more specific and metaphysically coherent felonies, just as has happened to many other traditional crimes. The moral substance of treason law is that your countrymen have the right to have you not help the people shooting at them.

Everyone, not just your countrymen, has a right to have you not help the people shooting at them.

I believe the relevant charge is called "accomplice to murder" or something like that.

Nice zinger; and I'm not averse to redefining treason-like crimes so you can only be convicted of them if you got somebody killed or ran a risk of it.

But no, when there's a war on, shooting people is not necessarily murder, and WWII Japanese troops didn't have a right to have a random American not help the people shooting at them. But they did have a right to have a random Japanese guy not help the people shooting at them. Perhaps the right approach is to abolish treason per se and simply classify an Englishman who helps the Nazis as an illegal combatant and a war criminal.

 

[Derec]

The only German language sources I can find are quoting English sources. It's probably made up altogether.

Wrong. From ~7 minutes.

 

[Juma]

The only German language sources I can find are quoting English sources. It's probably made up altogether.

Wrong. From ~7 minutes.

Snd can anyone (not Derec) translate what she actually says?

 

[Jokodo]

The only German language sources I can find are quoting English sources. It's probably made up altogether.

Wrong. From ~7 minutes.

Snd can anyone (not Derec) translate what she actually says?

Roughly, starting from 6:30: Internal security is the number one responsibility of the state. The state has a monopoly on power and has to secure that people have a right to feel safe when ever they meet, or move, in public space. This is one of our most noble responsibilities. This is why we changed the motto already in our last party programme from "freedom and responsibility" to "freedom and security", because we know freedom can only be exercised when security is guaranteed. This topic has been motivating us for a long time, but which is of particular urgency today." -- Interviewer: "What does this mean more specifically? A zero-tolerance policy?" -- "Well that means for example that there are no no-go-areas, that there cannot be spaces where people don't dare to go. Such spaces exist and that needs to be called by its name and something to be done about it. I think that Thomas de Maziere did a very good job at that as minister of interior, but we also said we want a federally uniform police law. We cannot allow for different security standards to exist in different federal states (Bundesländer), this has to standardised at the federal level."

So the way she's using it, it might as well refer to any shady part of town or any area where the narco-scene congregates -- all that's needed is that people feel unsafe there. It is not implied that the police or other security and emergency services won't go there, it's not implied that this is a new phenomenon, and it is not implied that it has anything in particular to do with Muslims, or that it's specifically non-Muslims who feel unsafe.

There were parts of town in the small town I grew up you avoided because they'd frequently become the scene of brawls between punks and skinheads, or because it's where the narcos hang out - and it didn't mean anyone would actively try to drive you out, least of all because you're not a Muslim.

So basically what she's saying is subjective safety isn't what it should be in some places. That's a very long shot from the lies Fox et al. have been spreading, and it's extremely dishonest of them to present this as "see? Even Merkel admits we were right all along!"