Derec
Contributor
Fear is a necessary emotion. It keeps one alive. Lack of fear in face of real dangers is not bravery, it's foolhardiness.
Specifically with regards to mass migration and islamization, it's sticking one's head in the sand.
-
Features
Europe submits voluntarily
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
- Status
Specifically with regards to mass migration and islamization, it's sticking one's head in the sand.
Derec
Contributor
And Italy has caved with another ship, so that's 1500 mass migrants in a few days.
Boat carrying over 900 migrants docks in Italy
The flood of mass migrants will not be stopped until EU shuts borders down to illegal migration. Unless and until that happens, I do not see mass migration (currently >100,000/a from Africa through Mediterranean alone) abating. Given large birth rates throughout Africa, there is more than enough young men being made to overtake Europe completely.
By all means, rescue people in distress at sea, but do not bring them to Europe, as that merely encourages many more to do the same. Instead, help them go home.
Derec
Contributor
As they say "the constitution is not a suicide pact". If 400 enemy combatants are flooding into UK, then English Common Law should not be a suicide pact either.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,432
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Really?
How many people - friends, family members, neighbours - people that you knew personally, by name; How many of those people have died in your lifetime?
Now, of those who have died, how many were killed as a direct result of mass migration or islamization?
The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. You are a craven coward, terrified of a practically non-existent threat. You disgust me.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,432
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
1) You (and the Daily Mail) have zero evidence that they are 'enemy combatants'. If there WAS evidence of that, then they would be tried and jailed - many have been. It would be suicidal for a democratic and free nation to start imprisoning citizens for the crimes they fear they might perhaps commit in the future.
2) 400 is a FLOOD of 0.0006% of the population. How terrifying and overwhelming!! When someone invites you to outrage, you should decline. When someone uses hyperbole, you should laugh at them. 400 people is a drop in the ocean. To describe them as a flood is fucking ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself for your cowardice and for your pathetic exaggeration of a non-event.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
"Asian" grooming gang sentenced;
DailyMail
This was probably the case that Tommy Robinson was covering when he was arrested for breaching the terms of his suspended sentence. Tommy needs to choose his battles more wisely. The establishment does not like oiks bringing attention to this stuff.
And "Asian" usually means Pakistani (defacto muslim) in the UK press.
DailyMail
This was probably the case that Tommy Robinson was covering when he was arrested for breaching the terms of his suspended sentence. Tommy needs to choose his battles more wisely. The establishment does not like oiks bringing attention to this stuff.
And "Asian" usually means Pakistani (defacto muslim) in the UK press.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_people#United_Kingdom
It seems the UK media may well be just going with UK usage, just as the US media usually goes by US usage and means "Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.", by "Asian"Wikipedia said:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,432
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
No, it probably wasn't. Crimes committed in Oxford would not typically be tried in Leeds.
The establishment has no problem with anyone bringing attention to the proceedings of the law. It does, quite correctly, have a problem with people prejudicing the outcome of a live trial, hence the need for postponement orders to prevent the publishing of opinions about cases that might unduly bias a jury, until after they have handed down their verdict.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, (alias 'Tommy Robinson') is a moronic thug, who has not to my knowledge acted wisely in his entire life, with the possible exception of his decision to plead guilty to contempt of court, rather then trying to fight a hopeless case. And that 'wisdom' likely came from his lawyers.
Asian usually means 'From the Indian subcontinent' in Britain. Nobody in Britain would think of a Chinese person as 'Asian'. But most Asians in Britain are Hindus, with a sizable minority of Muslims and Sikhs.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I suggest doing a little research about Europe ca 1900 to 1945. At the end of WWI we had this bright idea that each country in Europe should be the homeland of a single ethnicity. So we divided up the losing countries depending on Ethnicity. Which was dumb, because the ethnic make-up was absurdly fractured and various groups lived a bit everywhere. A bit like Syria today. Well.. what's left of it.
The result of doing this was that whatever majority group was handed the reigns in any country quickly retracted citizenship of any of it's minorities. Leaving millions in Europe without citizenship. And... more importantly... without anywhere to go. Because nobody would take them. Hungary had no inclination to allow stray Hungarians in Romania (who were seen as foreigners) to return to their mother country. It was the same for all these countries. In most of these countries the residents without citizenship had their right to work and live taken away. So they could be living on a farm their family had had for half a millenia and now had to resort to criminality. They weren't going to leave. Moving was a big deal back then, and virtually suicide. So we got a big black market of these "criminals". It was a major problem.
My point with saying all this is that these "unwelcomes" started doing stuff that we today associate with "Islamic terrorism" today. The rootless people resorted to anarchistic terrorism (the flavour of the day). Or communist terrorism. Or nationalistic terrorism. Bosnians engaged in Islamic terrorism. You'd have to be a complete idiot to single out the Muslims in this situaion as special. They were not. Yet, many did... which led to the rise of Fascism and Nazism. You are doing the same mistake. You're failing to connect (the pretty obvious dots) IMHO.
Having refugees floating around aimlessly is dangerous. Having anybody floating around unwelcome is dangerous. And it's not as simple as "refugees should stay close to their origins". Terrorism and these kinds of behaviours has a way of spreading. Plane tickets are cheap.
It's important to understand that any group of people, put under enough social stress, will turn violent. Mostly against their own group. And they'll use whatever bullshit excuse they have available. Islam really isn't special.
edit:
Every fucking time it's the same. Every refugee crisis follows a predictable pattern and this one is no different.
1) war
2) refugees looking for refuge
3) all countries around it do their best to not take in refugees while technically following the UN charter. They also get bitter about that countries further away take no responsibility at all.
4) clusterfuck. More for those immidiately around it, but the unrest inevitably spreads across the world.
It could easily be avoided by doing this instead
1) war
2) refugees looking for refuge
3) all countries of the world have a pow wow about what to do about it.
4) They all pitch in. Camps are set up around the world to take pressure off the countries closest to the conflict.
5) Transports are organised to help move the refugees.
6) the refugees are quickly integrated into the societies they have been moved to. Having a job and something to do all day is important for people. Especially people who have been traumatised by stuff, like war for example.
7) After peace the refugees are moved back.
Right now we put every impediment we can think of in the way of the refugees. People who are fleeing in panic from their homes. No shit that doesn't work out.
Last edited:
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
Most of them are not refugees fleeing in panic from their homes. Most of them are economic migrants. And maybe if the well meaning but delusional charity boats would stop picking them and bringing them into Europe there wouldn't be such a crisis. It's like Uber on water, these boat loads of migrants set off to sea (accompanied by a sprinkling of pregnant women and children for maximum sympathy effect) knowing full well they will never make it and then call Uber boat to ferry them in. Bonkers.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I'm only talking about refugees. And nothing and nobody else
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,432
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
It's easy to whip up fear by including atrocities that didn't happen.
Every such instance is a demonstration that the current system works, and that no action is needed. so they not only shouldn't be counted as part of the problem; They should be counted as part of the evidence that there is no problem. From the figures presented, it is obvious that current vetting is more than sufficient, and that making it more stringent would be pointless and futile.
Of course, relying on Daily Mail readers to think that through is like relying on something incredibly unreliable and untrustworthy. (I was going to use an analogy there, but then I thought it through and decided I had best keep it simple).
"Dozens of attacks thwarted" should not be seen as a problem in need of a solution. Particularly when 16% of three of these attacks by asylum seekers were in the UK - That's an estimated 0.48 of a potential attack by asylum seekers in the UK in four years. Asylum seekers would appear to be a dramatically lesser threat to UK residents than lightning strikes.
"One attempted serious crime by asylum seekers in the UK every eight years, almost certain to be detected and prevented by the authorities" is not a viable headline, nor even newsworthy at all. But it's what that story actually says.
And "84% of terrorist plots in Europe have nothing to do with asylum seekers" for some reason also failed to be chosen for the headline. I wonder why?
Every such instance is a demonstration that the current system works, and that no action is needed. so they not only shouldn't be counted as part of the problem; They should be counted as part of the evidence that there is no problem. From the figures presented, it is obvious that current vetting is more than sufficient, and that making it more stringent would be pointless and futile.
Of course, relying on Daily Mail readers to think that through is like relying on something incredibly unreliable and untrustworthy. (I was going to use an analogy there, but then I thought it through and decided I had best keep it simple).
"Dozens of attacks thwarted" should not be seen as a problem in need of a solution. Particularly when 16% of three of these attacks by asylum seekers were in the UK - That's an estimated 0.48 of a potential attack by asylum seekers in the UK in four years. Asylum seekers would appear to be a dramatically lesser threat to UK residents than lightning strikes.
"One attempted serious crime by asylum seekers in the UK every eight years, almost certain to be detected and prevented by the authorities" is not a viable headline, nor even newsworthy at all. But it's what that story actually says.
And "84% of terrorist plots in Europe have nothing to do with asylum seekers" for some reason also failed to be chosen for the headline. I wonder why?
Derec
Contributor
So you agree that we should turn away boat migrats from Africa since they are almost exclusively economic migrants? You agree that Germany made a big mistake by letting in a million mass migrants in a single year without knowing anything about them? You agree that handing out asylum like candy (as was done by German office for migration and refugees Bamf) was wrong?
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Exactly right. And there is no evidence to back up TSwizzle's claim that "Most of them are not refugees..." or that they are "economic migrants". They are law-abiding foreigners who are applying for asylum, not criminals. Nevertheless, the Trump administration is falsely characterizing them as criminals, and that is the characterization that keeps getting repeated, sometimes without any correction, in news stories. Attorney General Sessions has justified the separation of the children from parents as something that is justifiable treatment of illegal immigrants, even though these people are not illegal immigrants. Sessions even quoted the Bible:
The press has predictably criticized the quote without correcting the presumption that these people have violated the law. IOW, they have accepted the misleading way that the administration framed the situation and focused on the merits of the irrelevant Biblical quote.
Derec
Contributor
You posted this in the wrong thread. This thread is about mass migrants who are invading Europe, not mass migrants who are invading United States.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I wouldn't have formulated it like that, but largely I agree. But I also think it was wrong by the UN to declare Afghanistan peaceful so refugees from that country (at war) lost their refugee status. They are genuine refugees.
As far as I'm concerned we have a duty to help refugees. Non-refugees we don't.
I also question the statement that we've handed out asylum like candy. The rules for asylum have been and still are absurdly harsh. They should be a lot more liberal IMHO. The problem with refugees isn't that it's easy to become a refugee. It's not. It's so hard I would call it abusive. We need less vetting. Not more. We'll still do a stellar job of separating real refugees from migrants. It's not a problem and I'm unaware it has been anywhere. If it has been I'll need a reliable source? Tip, not Daily Mail.
Allowing a self declared refugee to stay in the country in holding centres pending a case review, is NOT granting them asylum. A refugee granted asylum is free to travel around the country. Germany handed out the status "asylum seekers" to all those refugees who came. That's not the same thing as asylum. Those were housed in camps comparable to prisons. No freedom of movement.
I'm well aware that the tabloid press and racist blogs have been consciously misleading in their reporting of this. Could it be they had you fooled?
The problems with the refugees is the sheer number, because Syria is a large country. Crime and bad behaviour is a question of statistics. Overall the Syrian refugees have behaved much like could be expected of people in general.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Just thought I'd add a picture from Stockholm Pride a couple of years ago. This is a friend of mine. He's not gay. Just very passionate about supporting freedom of expression for everybody. He is also a Muslim.
angelo
Deleted
Have you ever asked your friend what he thinks about xtians and in particular Jews?
- Status