Europe submits voluntarily

[ZiprHead]

... the Syrian civil war started and the Iraqis (together with Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.) mixed in with the Syrians.


What US terrorist attack? You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction? You do know that the only reason Saddam didn't get nukes is because Israel bombed the reactor in which he was going to make Plutonium, right?

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

That reactor was bombed in 1981, foo...

 

[Harry Bosch]

... the Syrian civil war started and the Iraqis (together with Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.) mixed in with the Syrians.


What US terrorist attack? You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction? You do know that the only reason Saddam didn't get nukes is because Israel bombed the reactor in which he was going to make Plutonium, right?

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

Technically, the ME started destabilizing shortly after the US evicted Alexander the Great from Persia in 1069.

 

[SimpleDon]

I admit that in my adult life I have not been gripped with fear very often. I am not afraid of heights, confined spaces, swift water, flying, spiders, snakes, the dark, children, women, guns, public speaking, failure, loud noises, large dogs, etc. It is safe to stay then that I don't understand the fear of change that is the hallmark of conservatives, the fear of people with more melanin in their skin, the fear of strong women, the fear of men who love men or who dress as women or what we are discussing here, the fear of someone who is of a different religion or a different country than I am.

For the most part, I learned not to be afraid of these things as a child. These fears are irrational. For example, it is irrational to be afraid of heights, it makes one much more likely to fall and avoiding falls is very rational. Or I am a person so it is irrational to be afraid of people.

Here in this thread and others, I am told that I should be afraid of some of these people that I don't fear now. And always it is for the same reason because some people in those groups commit crimes.

This apparently is a selective process to decide whom to learn to be afraid of based on whom someone else fears. I am not to learn to fear all of the people in some groups because some people in the group commit crimes, when the members of the group have a melanin deficiency or when they come from the same country that I come from.

Sorry, I like my way better, to not live in fear.

 

[ZiprHead]

I admit that in my adult life I have not been gripped with fear very often. I am not afraid of heights, confined spaces, swift water, flying, spiders, snakes, the dark, children, women, guns, public speaking, failure, loud noises, large dogs, etc. It is safe to stay then that I don't understand the fear of change that is the hallmark of conservatives, the fear of people with more melanin in their skin, the fear of strong women, the fear of men who love men or who dress as women or what we are discussing here, the fear of someone who is of a different religion or a different country than I am.

For the most part, I learned not to be afraid of these things as a child. These fears are irrational. For example, it is irrational to be afraid of heights, it makes one much more likely to fall and avoiding falls is very rational. Or I am a person so it is irrational to be afraid of people.

Here in this thread and others, I am told that I should be afraid of some of these people that I don't fear now. And always it is for the same reason because some people in those groups commit crimes.

This apparently is a selective process to decide whom to learn to be afraid of based on whom someone else fears. I am not to learn to fear all of the people in some groups because some people in the group commit crimes, when the members of the group have a melanin deficiency or when they come from the same country that I come from.

Sorry, I like my way better, to not live in fear.

They really do act like cowards, don't they.

 

[untermensche]

What US terrorist attack?

The US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003.

You can pretend it was not terrorism on a massive scale if you like to live in delusion.

You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction?

I mean the Iraqi people that were attacked and killed. The people who were randomly rounded up and tortured. Some tortured to death.

We saw the pictures.

Yes the prior government was removed and a US approved government was installed. And that has been a problem.

The government is not looked at as legitimate by many Iraqi's.

They did not create it.

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

Third rate worthless opinion that justifies terrorism.

 

[arkirk]

... the Syrian civil war started and the Iraqis (together with Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.) mixed in with the Syrians.


What US terrorist attack? You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction? You do know that the only reason Saddam didn't get nukes is because Israel bombed the reactor in which he was going to make Plutonium, right?

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

I say Untermensche is right and it is you who are wrong. No other nation in the entire globe spends more money invading, bombing, arming dictators, locating over 900 military bases in other people's lands. No other country has a leader that loudly declares he is ready to annihilate his enemies with nukes. No other country spends as much money on their entire military as the increase in U.S. military spending this year. No, Derec...you are plain wrong. No other country sells as many weapons world wide as the U.S. The U.S. is almost universally regarded as the number one security threat in the world by other nations.

 

[bilby]

Fear, anger and outrage cause people to make poor decisions.

When someone invites you to join them in outrage at anything, it is unwise to accept the invitation; It just makes you stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... the Syrian civil war started and the Iraqis (together with Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.) mixed in with the Syrians.


What US terrorist attack? You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction? You do know that the only reason Saddam didn't get nukes is because Israel bombed the reactor in which he was going to make Plutonium, right?

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

That reactor was bombed in 1981, foo...

And that was the end of his WMD ambitions??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003.

You can pretend it was not terrorism on a massive scale if you like to live in delusion.

You do not know what the word means.

I mean the Iraqi people that were attacked and killed. The people who were randomly rounded up and tortured. Some tortured to death.

We saw the pictures.

Yes the prior government was removed and a US approved government was installed. And that has been a problem.

The government is not looked at as legitimate by many Iraqi's.

They did not create it.

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

Third rate worthless opinion that justifies terrorism.

You apparently don't understand the heart of the conflict. Iraq was a state where a minority oppressed a majority. We ended that oppression. Of course the former oppressors didn't like that one bit. Does that make it a wrong thing to do, though?

And the real violence in Iraq wasn't our doing, but rather with the removal of oppressive state security allowed Iran to meddle to a large degree. Most of the violence was Sunni/Shia ethnic cleansing.

 

[Derec]

That reactor was bombed in 1981, foo...

I know, but the leopard doesn't change his spots.

- - - Updated - - -

I say Untermensche is right and it is you who are wrong.

2nd Gulf War was in many ways a mishandled military intervention, but it was a legitimate military intervention. Not a terrorist attack.

 

[untermensche]

2nd Gulf War was in many ways a mishandled military intervention, but it was a legitimate military intervention. Not a terrorist attack.

It was a deliberate and unprovoked attack of a people to force them to change their political system.

There could be no more clear example of terrorism.

If it happened to you you would understand it was terrorism.

If you weredragged from your home in front of your screaming children in the middle of the night and taken to Abu Ghraib and tortured you would understand it was terrorism.

If you went for years without electricity you would understand it was terrorism.

If ISIS was unleashed in your backyard you would understand it was terrorism.

 

[angelo]

... the Syrian civil war started and the Iraqis (together with Afghans, Iranians, Pakistanis etc.) mixed in with the Syrians.


What US terrorist attack? You mean removal of a dictator who was seeking weapons of mass destruction? You do know that the only reason Saddam didn't get nukes is because Israel bombed the reactor in which he was going to make Plutonium, right?

US terrorism is at the bottom of all this migration.

Wrong.

Technically, the ME started destabilizing shortly after the US evicted Alexander the Great from Persia in 1069.

That's about correct by some people's reasoning here. Even earlier. Try the 7th century AD. even before Chis set off from EU on his trip of discovery!

 

[TSwizzle]

Spain gives in;

Hundreds of the migrants and refugees onboard the Aquarius rescue ship are being transferred to Italian coastguard and naval vessels to begin their journey to Spain, despite pleas for them to be allowed to recuperate in the nearest port. On Tuesday afternoon, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said the crew of the Aquarius had been instructed by the maritime rescue coordination centre in Rome to transfer 400 of the 629 people onboard to the two vessels, which will then sail for Valencia. The migrants and refugees, including children and pregnant women, were saved by the French NGO SOS Méditerranée from waters off the coast of Libya on Saturday, but the Aquarius was caught in a dramatic standoff over the weekend in which both Italy and Malta refused to allow it to dock.

TehGrauniad

I wonder how the Grauniad correspondent can tell the difference between a refugee and a migrant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

2nd Gulf War was in many ways a mishandled military intervention, but it was a legitimate military intervention. Not a terrorist attack.

It was a deliberate and unprovoked attack of a people to force them to change their political system.

Deliberate--how is that supposed to be a criticism?

Unprovoked--hardly. Saddam was playing a repeated game of blocking the inspectors until our army was poised to attack, then he would back down, allow the inspections and we would bring our troops back. Rinse and repeat until Bush had had enough.

While military action was warranted I don't think invasion was the right answer. My thought is one night the F-117s should have removed those 26 "palaces" we weren't allowed to inspect.

There could be no more clear example of terrorism.

You need to visit an eye doctor.

If ISIS was unleashed in your backyard you would understand it was terrorism.

You realize ISIS got much of it's power from those kicked out in Iraq? In other words, the rulers of Iraq were terrorists.

 

[untermensche]

Deliberate--how is that supposed to be a criticism?

Your blindness does not surprise me.

When you deliberately attack a group of people who have not attacked you it is called aggression.

When it is massive aggression to overturn governments and replace them it is terrorism.

Unprovoked--hardly. Saddam was playing a repeated game of blocking the inspectors until our army was poised to attack, then he would back down, allow the inspections and we would bring our troops back. Rinse and repeat until Bush had had enough.

Those were UN inspectors and the UN Security Counsel enforces problems with UN inspectors.

Not the strongest terrorist on the block.

You realize ISIS got much of it's power from those kicked out in Iraq? In other words, the rulers of Iraq were terrorists.

They were not the rulers of Iraq. They were high ranking military commanders. Ordinary military.

But they had no job after the US terrorist attack so they found work with ISIS.

Basically the US handed ISIS professional military commanders. Then it handed ISIS modern weapons and equipment. Almost as if ISIS was a US plan to destabilize the region.

A nation devoted to endless war needs things like ISIS.

 

[Derec]

And yet another stabbing of a teenage girl by a follower of the Religion of Peace.
Teenage girl stabbed to death in park in Viersen, Germany
It seems to be an open season on girls in Germany ...

 

[TSwizzle]

This does not bode well for Britain as allah's holy warriors return "home";

Only 40 of the 400 British jihadis who fought in Syria and Iraq have been prosecuted on their return home. At least 360 battle-hardened fanatics are being allowed to go free because there is too little evidence to convict them. The figures, disclosed by security minister Ben Wallace, will raise concerns over whether the authorities can keep track of all the dangerous extremists on our streets. Police chiefs have repeatedly warned of the severity of the terror threat facing Britain – particularly from those who have been radicalised by fighting abroad. John Woodcock, the Labour MP who had pressed for the release of the figures, said: ‘It’s no wonder the Government tried to keep secret that it has only managed to prosecute one in ten of the British jihadis returning from Syria.

DailyMail

 

[bilby]

This does not bode well for Britain as allah's holy warriors return "home";

Only 40 of the 400 British jihadis who fought in Syria and Iraq have been prosecuted on their return home. At least 360 battle-hardened fanatics are being allowed to go free because there is too little evidence to convict them. The figures, disclosed by security minister Ben Wallace, will raise concerns over whether the authorities can keep track of all the dangerous extremists on our streets. Police chiefs have repeatedly warned of the severity of the terror threat facing Britain – particularly from those who have been radicalised by fighting abroad. John Woodcock, the Labour MP who had pressed for the release of the figures, said: ‘It’s no wonder the Government tried to keep secret that it has only managed to prosecute one in ten of the British jihadis returning from Syria.

DailyMail

Oh Noes! People against whom there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction are not going to jail! It's a disaster for the rule of law!

Oh, wait, that's how it's meant to work.

Oddly, under English Law, being accused of being a 'battle hardened fanatic' by the Daily Fail is not sufficient grounds for imprisonment. You actually have to break the law, and there has to be evidence that you broke the law that can withstand scrutiny in the courts, before you get sent to prison.

All this freedom can't be good for us. We must eliminate freedom for 'them', in order to secure it for 'us'.

 

[Copernicus]

You can find the moved posts here: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...he-and-Angelo-evaluate-each-other-s-character

 

[Derec]

Germany: Man suspected of preparing attack after police find toxic substance in home in Cologne

It's a 29 year old Tunisian.