• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
Migrant stabs 3 in German town

Can you guess where the "migrant" was from?
Afghanistan. It is curious why so many stabists come from that country. But it is yet again an indictment against Angela Merkel's open borders policy that allowed a million of unvetted mass migrannts form places like Afghnaistan to flood into Germany with no restrictions. And it is very difficult to deport them, which is another problem. Even when their asylum gets denied (which happens way too infrequently), they can stay in Germany for years because of all the appeals they can pursue. The result is situations like these.
 
When I volonteered in a homeless shelter I'd see these guys all the time.
Were those homeless shelters mostly inhabited by Old Swedes or New Swedes (aka Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans etc.) that some of your politicians think are so superior to Old Swedes?
And a pro-tip. In English, "volunteer" is written with 'u' as the second vowel, not 'o'.

They all had mobile phones because they needed it.
Mobile phone != smart phone
And even smart phone !=overpriced iPhones.

Without it they couldn't run their lives at all. So it was their one and only investment.
Other than hair gel purchased by the gallon.

They usually had cheap Chinese knock off phones. They'd never use them to call. Only use wifi. Because they had no money. Why four phones? Who knows. He could have been a drug dealer. Then he'd need more phones. Or it's a problem of translation and he either didn't have four phones, he was holding phones for others, or the other three were already broken and he was hoping somebody could fix them. Or more likely, he was lying about the other three phones.
I don't know what brand he had. But if he is a drug dealer he'd have money. B

Working in a homeless shelter, you learn pretty fast that these guys can't be trusted one bit. They'll say whatever to get stuff. They're all perpetual victims. For all we know he dropped the phone himself and told the story in the hope that he'd be given a new phone.
So if you admit this, why do you insist that Europe has to keep letting in unlimited number of people just like him?

Usually they had one fancy piece of clothing, that they took meticulous care of. There's no way in hell they've actually bought it in a shop. Probably found in the street or stolen. Homeless people often look well taken care of, and are well groomed.
Maybe in Sweden, but not here. Our urban outdoorsmen look like you'd expect.
But note that this encampment is in Bosnia, not Sweden. And the migrant himself is from Algeria. You experience in Sweden does not necessarily translate.

It's very important for homeless people, not to look homeless.
I don't get it. How do they beg if they don't look homeless? Or do they get so much money from the state that they don't have to beg?

His haircut is not meticulously done. His haircut is what you get if a guy in a homeless shelter, with a trimmer, did his hair.
Depends on your standards I guess. It's certainly more complicated than a simple buzz cut and requires daily maintenance with the hair gel and frequent trimming of the sides.

And that's all they did. You can see that the second guy to trim it missed quite a bit. I cut the hair of loads of these guys in the similar way. But I did a better job of it. Arabs have very thick hair. So they barely need to do anything with it to make it look nice
I've noticed that pretty much all young Arabs these days use hair gel or hair grease or whatever they are putting in it. What's up with that?
 
So if terrorism is not the right word for violence and invasion by either
A.) large states that are democratic and whipped up mobs of fury or
B.) large states run by a central dictator or
C.) a hybrid of both

What is the right word that captures the essence and nastiness of what they do?

Large violent states have the ability to unfairly single out stateless "terrorist" actors for a greater stigma.

It has to be indiscriminate in some sense. The point is to create a state of perpetual fear in some group.

If you're safe as long as you just go about your business, then it's not terrorism. Its peaceful people not looking for trouble that are the targets for terrorism.

The police hunt criminals. Yet, we don't call the police a terrorist force.

USA invaded Iraq because of the long list of human rights abuses and the Kuwait invasion. The WMD's were just icing on that cake. Attacking him was in no shape or form terrorism. That's not to justify it or defend USA.

Again... terrorism is not a value judgement. It's a description of an activity.
 
So if terrorism is not the right word for violence and invasion by either
A.) large states that are democratic and whipped up mobs of fury or
B.) large states run by a central dictator or
C.) a hybrid of both

What is the right word that captures the essence and nastiness of what they do?

Large violent states have the ability to unfairly single out stateless "terrorist" actors for a greater stigma.

Well... we do call what the Nazis did to Germany terrorism, because the aim was to create a state of perpetual fear from the Gestapo. Same deal what Saddam did to the Iraq people. The goal of terrorism is to make sure nobody in the target country ever feels safe.

USA, for all their faults didn't use terror as a way to maintain control in Iraq. It may have been a hassle, with all that security, but the aim still wasn't to cause terror among the population.

If Al Qaeda was paid by CIA to place IED's you may have a point, otherwise not.
 
Nazis were not terrorists.

They hung because they were.

If there were some greater power than the US then GW Bush and the others who planned and ordered MASSIVE US terrorism would have hung too.

Some think it isn't terrorism if it is MASSIVE.

Some think it isn't terrorism if you use tanks and planes.

Some have NO HUMAN MORALITY. The starting point for morality is that all lives have equal value but actions do not.

They hung for things like Auschwitz, not for being terrorists.

They were hung for waging aggressive war.

Hung for crimes against the military and civilians.
 
Nazis were not terrorists.

They certainly used terror tactics to stay in power. It's become standard operating procedure for weak dictators nowadays. They're using the method because they are so politically weak, and do NOT have the support of the people. USSR used the same strategy to keep their people under control.

The Nazis were most assuredly terrorists, before they came to power. Once they had control of an army, navy, air force and the police forces, they stopped being terrorists and became the leaders of a rogue state.
 
The idea that nations can't carry out acts of terrorism is just stupidity.

There is no reason what-so-ever to say they can't.

The US attack of the Iraqi people, it's attack of the Vietnamese and Cambodians, were acts of terrorism.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was terrorism.

The Japanese attack of China and Hawaii was terrorism.

The Nazi invasions were terrorism.

It doesn't stop being terrorism because it is massive terrorism.
 
The idea that nations can't carry out acts of terrorism is just stupidity.

There is no reason what-so-ever to say they can't.

The US attack of the Iraqi people, it's attack of the Vietnamese and Cambodians, were acts of terrorism.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was terrorism.

The Japanese attack of China and Hawaii was terrorism.

The Nazi invasions were terrorism.

It doesn't stop being terrorism because it is massive terrorism.

I don't understand what you think terrorism means. You use it to describe such a variety of activities that it stops being meningful.

I still think you're just using it as a value judgement. As in, anything you don't approve of is terrorism.
 
It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

The US invasion of Vietnam or Laos didn't unleash a world wide jihad upon the West. It wasn't the Vietnamese or any other South East Asian people responsible for 9/11 or the London Tube bombing, or the other myriad of world wide terrorist attacks.

There's been around 30.000 islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world just since 9/11. Very few committed by non muslims. Doesn't that tell you anything about the violence of this barbaric ideology?
 
Nazis were not terrorists.

They certainly used terror tactics to stay in power. It's become standard operating procedure for weak dictators nowadays. They're using the method because they are so politically weak, and do NOT have the support of the people. USSR used the same strategy to keep their people under control.

The Nazis were most assuredly terrorists, before they came to power. Once they had control of an army, navy, air force and the police forces, they stopped being terrorists and became the leaders of a rogue state.

You mean just like in Afghanistan under the Taliban?
 
There's been around 30.000 islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world just since 9/11. Very few committed by non muslims. Doesn't that tell you anything about the violence of this barbaric ideology?

Could you name some of the Islamic terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims? Sounds like a bizarre statment. Baseless, in fact. Something you made up?
 
The idea that nations can't carry out acts of terrorism is just stupidity.

There is no reason what-so-ever to say they can't.

The US attack of the Iraqi people, it's attack of the Vietnamese and Cambodians, were acts of terrorism.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was terrorism.

The Japanese attack of China and Hawaii was terrorism.

The Nazi invasions were terrorism.

It doesn't stop being terrorism because it is massive terrorism.

www.dictionary.com

Since you apparently don't know what a dictionary is.
 
There's been around 30.000 islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world just since 9/11. Very few committed by non muslims. Doesn't that tell you anything about the violence of this barbaric ideology?

Could you name some of the Islamic terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims? Sounds like a bizarre statment. Baseless, in fact. Something you made up?

You're nitpicking over wording.

How many terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims recently? And how many by non-Muslims?

Beware of a mistake the US used to make--counting terrorism without counting it's severity. The simplest way to avoid this error is only count incidents in which someone died.
 
There's been around 30.000 islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world just since 9/11. Very few committed by non muslims. Doesn't that tell you anything about the violence of this barbaric ideology?

Could you name some of the Islamic terrorist attacks carried out by non-Muslims? Sounds like a bizarre statment. Baseless, in fact. Something you made up?

You're nitpicking over wording.

How many terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims recently? And how many by non-Muslims?

Beware of a mistake the US used to make--counting terrorism without counting it's severity. The simplest way to avoid this error is only count incidents in which someone died.

Meh.... Since 9/11 the Middle-East has been highly unstable. Political instability generates terrorism. Just look at any period in history it's the same deal. The question is whether the current terrorism is politically or religiously motivated. I think it's politically (and not religiously ) motivated.

Why do we have more terrorism now than before? Our high tech society is increasingly sensitive to terror attacks. To put it bluntly, terrorism has never paid off as well as it does today.

BTW, in the beginning of the 20'th century the main culprit of terror was atheist anarchists. Using the logic of this thread would mean that atheism leads to terrorism, and we have to root them out and expel them from the west. We didn't, and things turned out just fine.
 
It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

The US invasion of Vietnam or Laos didn't unleash a world wide jihad upon the West. It wasn't the Vietnamese or any other South East Asian people responsible for 9/11 or the London Tube bombing, or the other myriad of world wide terrorist attacks.

There's been around 30.000 islamic terrorist attacks throughout the world just since 9/11. Very few committed by non muslims. Doesn't that tell you anything about the violence of this barbaric ideology?

The fundamentalists running all over the place in the ME are there because of direct US and British interference.

The US and Britain promoted fundamentalism for decades as a way to counteract pan-Arab nationalism.

There were massive movements of pan-Arab nationalism after WWII. Arabs joining together across national lines across religious differences.

These were secular movements. They sought to remove the influence of Britain and the US from the region and form a powerful Arab coalition. Most importantly they wanted Arabs to enjoy the wealth from the oil in Arab lands, not the West or Saudi dictators.

To counteract these movements the US and Britain supporter the fundamentalist Saudi regime. They massively promoted religious fundamentalism far and wide in the Arab world.

Divide and conquer.

When this wasn't enough they launched a massive terrorist attack of a defenseless people. Shattered a nation and started sectarian violence that hadn't existed in Iraq for centuries. They gave ISIS military leadership. Gave it weapons. Gave it cash.

Then ran away from a shattered region with ISIS roaming freely.

All this insane religious fundamentalism in the ME is not some natural growth.

It was planted and nurtured by huge powerful external nations wanting to control oil.
 
That self loathing, hate of Western Democracies including Israel lame excuse for Islamic atrocities doesn't cut it.
Suicide bombers have only one origin, and that's the barbarism of the followers of what all muzzies are taught is Mohammed the most barbaric terrorist of all, as the most perfect man who ever lived, and it is imperitive that all muslims follow in his footsteps according to islam.

There is where the problem lays, not with some perceived wrong doing by any Western nation.

On the contrary, it was Western judeo/Christian based civilisation that brought about modernity and technology to the backward Arab world.
 
That self loathing, hate of Western Democracies including Israel lame excuse for Islamic atrocities doesn't cut it.
Suicide bombers have only one origin, and that's the barbarism of the followers of what all muzzies are taught is Mohammed the most barbaric terrorist of all, as the most perfect man who ever lived, and it is imperitive that all muslims follow in his footsteps according to islam.

There is where the problem lays, not with some perceived wrong doing by any Western nation.

On the contrary, it was Western judeo/Christian based civilisation that brought about modernity and technology to the backward Arab world.

What? Christianity, (if we read the Bible like you read the Quran) is incompatible with democracy and Western values. Yet, here we are. The Enlightenment is a rejection of Christian values and the basis for western values and civilisation.

You don't even know what side you're on
 
That self loathing, hate of Western Democracies including Israel lame excuse for Islamic atrocities doesn't cut it.
Suicide bombers have only one origin, and that's the barbarism of the followers of what all muzzies are taught is Mohammed the most barbaric terrorist of all, as the most perfect man who ever lived, and it is imperitive that all muslims follow in his footsteps according to islam.

There is where the problem lays, not with some perceived wrong doing by any Western nation.

On the contrary, it was Western judeo/Christian based civilisation that brought about modernity and technology to the backward Arab world.

What the US and Britain have been doing in the region for decades is loathsome.

They should be despised for their sick interference and transformation of the region into a fundamentalist haven.

They are the cause of this period of heightened fundamentalism.

The problem is secular leaders want the US and Britain out of the region. This is why despotic dictatorial monarchies exist. This is why brutal leaders like Saddam Hussein were helped to gain power.

The level of fundamentalism we see today in the ME has nothing to do with Islam.

It was carefully planned by sick greedy interfering foreign powers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom