The current refugee wave in Europe

[Meshugger]

Why would that be embarrassing? 

 

Because the media (state and private) have portrayed it about thousands of families (pictured as women and children) from Syria are coming, that we all need to help, and subsequently we have had charities with childrens clothes, books, and toys. We established a huge network of refugee centers, built an infrastructure and reserved houses and renovated them for Syrian families....when in reality it is well-dressed, happy Iraqi and Afghani men in fighting age that have a lot of money. Elerond already linked about people turning back because the lack bars and the weather, which leaves people feeling quite duped.

 

The cracks are already showing when the minister of interior is already calling for renegotitation of the quotas with other nordic countries.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

Should ship the Iraqis to the US, really. They're not obvious opportunity seekers or anything, I imagine they are included in the quotas being talked about in the EU ?

[BruceVC]

 

Why would that be embarrassing? 

 

Because the media (state and private) have portrayed it about thousands of families (pictured as women and children) from Syria are coming, that we all need to help, and subsequently we have had charities with childrens clothes, books, and toys. We established a huge network of refugee centers, built an infrastructure and reserved houses and renovated them for Syrian families....when in reality it is well-dressed, happy Iraqi and Afghani men in fighting age that have a lot of money. Elerond already linked about people turning back because the lack bars and the weather, which leaves people feeling quite duped.

 

The cracks are already showing when the minister of interior is already calling for renegotitation of the quotas with other nordic countries.

 

Well it hasn't exactly been a secret that there will also be refugees from other war  torn countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq. These would be accepted in the EU but economic migrants wouldn't be 

 

So I'm not sure how Finland can say this was a complete surprise ?

[Meshugger]

No men of fighting age should be let in by principle. Exceptions of course if they are gay, of any religious minority or 50+ in age.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Why would that be embarrassing? 

 

Because the media (state and private) have portrayed it about thousands of families (pictured as women and children) from Syria are coming, that we all need to help, and subsequently we have had charities with childrens clothes, books, and toys. We established a huge network of refugee centers, built an infrastructure and reserved houses and renovated them for Syrian families....when in reality it is well-dressed, happy Iraqi and Afghani men in fighting age that have a lot of money. Elerond already linked about people turning back because the lack bars and the weather, which leaves people feeling quite duped.

 

The cracks are already showing when the minister of interior is already calling for renegotitation of the quotas with other nordic countries.

 

Well it hasn't exactly been a secret that there will also be refugees from other war  torn countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq. These would be accepted in the EU but economic migrants wouldn't be 

 

So I'm not sure how Finland can say this was a complete surprise ?

 

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the deal, we expected Syrians. All the rest can be considered as invading settlers and should be sent back unless they face prosecution for reasons earlier mentioned.

[Malcador]

No men of fighting age should be let in by principle. Exceptions of course if they are gay, of any religious minority or 50+ in age.

Let them in, but force them to work in customer service. They'll flee in droves!

Edited September 29, 2015 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the deal, we expected Syrians. All the rest can be considered as invading settlers and should be sent back unless they face prosecution for reasons earlier mentioned.

 

 

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis.  It's definitely a war torn country.  Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis.

[Chilloutman]

Seems like Austrians after pointing fingers on Hungary are going to use armed forces on their borders as well. Oh sweet irony xD

Edited September 29, 2015 by Chilloutman

[Meshugger]

 

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the deal, we expected Syrians. All the rest can be considered as invading settlers and should be sent back unless they face prosecution for reasons earlier mentioned.

 

 

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis.  It's definitely a war torn country.  Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis.

 

 

My point still stands, what was expected was Syrian women and children, not Iraqi men able to fight in their home country.

[Rostere]

 

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the deal, we expected Syrians. All the rest can be considered as invading settlers and should be sent back unless they face prosecution for reasons earlier mentioned.

 

 

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis.  It's definitely a war torn country.  Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis.

 

Afghanistan has gone down the ****ters and the Taliban are taking back the country, last I heard. That means everyone must flee from there because there exists no other entity which can inspire people to fight.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Rostere

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were not part of the deal, we expected Syrians. All the rest can be considered as invading settlers and should be sent back unless they face prosecution for reasons earlier mentioned.

 

 

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis.  It's definitely a war torn country.  Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis.

 

 

Its been war torn for over a decade now. Anybody being a refugee from Iraq in 2015. is beyond late.

 

Anyway, new solution to migration problems - reroute them all to Finland. 

Edited September 29, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

 

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis.  It's definitely a war torn country.  Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis.

 

My point still stands, what was expected was Syrian women and children, not Iraqi men able to fight in their home country.

 

Anyone looking at the refugee stream sees a disproportionate number of young men though, so anyone who expected anything else was deluding themself. Or letting themself be deluded by politicians. Or being facetious about people who let themselves be deluded by politicians. Really though, the most egregious bits of ISIS* genocidal nastiness was against the Yazidis, almost exclusively in Iraq not Syria and they've taken more population by far in Iraq than Syria in the past year or so, Mosul alone would have more population than all their Syrian territories combined. There's a perfectly good reason for more young men making the trip, it's a dangerous journey and more so for women, children and the old; it's safer for them to stay in a regional refugee camp and come later.

 

*The last S in ISIS is for al-Sham, not quite the same thing as Syria since it's the old Caliphate province that included Lebanon as well.

[213374U]

P.S. Please do not try to refute the sources, instead please come up with your own sources or logical arguments that strengthens your claims. That's a more interesting conversation.

 

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points!

 

Let's see, factual errors first, politics later.

 

Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%)

 

Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab.

 

In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe.

 

In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...]  Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount.

 

And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it.

 

Now:

 

But that's just the situation right now. We can always look at history, like Lebanon, Sudan, the Balkans, the split of India into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan just to name a few

Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right?

 

Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe".

 

If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum.

 

I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments.

 

And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think.

Edited September 30, 2015 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

 

P.S. Please do not try to refute the sources, instead please come up with your own sources or logical arguments that strengthens your claims. That's a more interesting conversation.

 

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points!

 

Let's see, factual errors first, politics later.

 

Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%)

 

Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab.

 

In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe.

 

In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...]  Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount.

 

And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it.

 

Now:

 

But that's just the situation right now. We can always look at history, like Lebanon, Sudan, the Balkans, the split of India into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan just to name a few

Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right?

 

Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe".

 

If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum.

 

I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments.

 

And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think.

 

 

Ah, too little time can cause quite the stress, i know the feeling. I of course disagree with everything you said and i will answer when i have the time as well, in a polite manner. Cheerio!

[Bartimaeus]

Whenever somebody makes a post that says something like "uh, yeah, I'll totally get back to you on that...at some undetermined time in the future..." and then completely fails to deliver on it (note: I am not specifically saying you won't, Mr. Meshugger, but rather that it's simply a tactic certain persons have a tendency to employ when they don't have or can't be bothered to make a counterargument), I always can't help but want to save a link to their post in the event of them ever trying to engage in an argument with me, just so that I can point it out and give myself a good reason to not bother spending half an hour (or more!) writing a reply(s) that will eventually all just boil down to that "I'll get back to you later". That would be so satisfying to do.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Meshugger]

Whenever somebody makes a post that says something like "uh, yeah, I'll totally get back to you on that...at some undetermined time in the future..." and then completely fails to deliver on it (note: I am not specifically saying you won't, Mr. Meshugger, but rather that it's simply a tactic certain person have a tendency to employ when they don't have or can't be bothered to make a counterargument), I always can't help but want to save a link to their post in the event of them ever trying to engage in an argument with me, just so that I can point it out and give myself a good reason to not bother spending half an hour (or more!) writing a reply(s) that will eventually all just boil down to that "I'll get back to you later". That would be so satisfying to do.

 

That's understandable, but numbersman did so himself to begin with. I was quite happy that he finally replied.

[BruceVC]

 

P.S. Please do not try to refute the sources, instead please come up with your own sources or logical arguments that strengthens your claims. That's a more interesting conversation.

 

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points!

 

Let's see, factual errors first, politics later.

 

Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%)

 

Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab.

 

In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe.

 

In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...]  Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount.

 

And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it.

 

Now:

 

But that's just the situation right now. We can always look at history, like Lebanon, Sudan, the Balkans, the split of India into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan just to name a few

Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right?

 

Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe".

 

If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum.

 

I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments.

 

And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think.

 

 

I think  a much greater  risk to the future of the EU is where countries like Spain don't see the value of austerity and blame the Germans for the fact that they haven't managed there economies properly...and then anti-austerity parties come to power who now expect bailouts and financial restructuring of there economies without making the necessary changes that are expected of them 

 

So yes I am not worried that Muslim refugees are going to in anyway undermine the EU or somehow weaken it. I am much more concerned with countries undergoing austerity not seeing the long term value of that austerity 

[213374U]

That's understandable, but numbersman did so himself to begin with. I was quite happy that he finally replied.

 

To be honest, I probably could have had a reply ready by monday afternoon. Sleeping 10 hours in 3 days plus ADD isn't exactly a path towards productivity, though.

 

It's not like the issue is going anywhere, so no rush anyway.

 

@Bartimaeus: yeah, even if the person you're replying to won't bother with your posts, it's a public forum, so in the interest of keeping the topic going, it may be worth replying anyway. And then there's Bruce...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Whenever somebody makes a post that says something like "uh, yeah, I'll totally get back to you on that...at some undetermined time in the future..." and then completely fails to deliver on it (note: I am not specifically saying you won't, Mr. Meshugger, but rather that it's simply a tactic certain persons have a tendency to employ when they don't have or can't be bothered to make a counterargument), I always can't help but want to save a link to their post in the event of them ever trying to engage in an argument with me, just so that I can point it out and give myself a good reason to not bother spending half an hour (or more!) writing a reply(s) that will eventually all just boil down to that "I'll get back to you later". That would be so satisfying to do.

Barti you funny :D

 

But taking time to respond is good ? this is how these debates work

[Bartimaeus]

@Bartimaeus: yeah, even if the person you're replying to won't bother with your posts, it's a public forum, so in the interest of keeping the topic going, it may be worth replying anyway. And then there's Bruce...

 

 

See, that's what I thought for a long time, too, but the truth is...no, it's really just not. There's definitely still *a* point in still replying, for sure, but is it a convincing point - a point that is enough that you should actually still do it? I just don't think so. If such...unsavory individuals want to demagogue and weasel their way into feeling like they win all their arguments (or at least don't lose them), I say let 'em: most people will pick up on such ridiculous antics after some time of being around them, anyways, and adjust accordingly. If other people without such terrible behavior - even completely unknown people - want to raise the same points, then I'll engage with them...but I personally have had my full share's worth of people who haven't had seemingly even one good faith discussion throughout their entire existence. So...that's that.

[Darkpriest]

So now, that Russians started their airstrikes in Syria, what will be the outcome?

 

Personally I hope that moderates will just cease fighting and then the armed Syrian forces backed by Russians will clear the ISIS scum out of there, so there will be no more "war" in Syria.

 

In this one case I fully support Russians, and I hope they won't give a F... about any militants they will get into their hands. I can already imagine those ISIS fighters being tied up and locked up with pigs. I remember one scenario when a Russian war ship capture some pirates.

 

Guess what other pirates got from this message, when compared to treatment they received from Western navys, who at worst arrested them for a time and released later, but usually just sent them freely, disarmed.

 

Perhaps with savages you need to speak to them in the language they will understand.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

P.S. Please do not try to refute the sources, instead please come up with your own sources or logical arguments that strengthens your claims. That's a more interesting conversation.

 

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points!

 

Let's see, factual errors first, politics later.

 

Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%)

 

Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab.

 

In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe.

 

In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...]  Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount.

 

And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it.

 

Now:

 

But that's just the situation right now. We can always look at history, like Lebanon, Sudan, the Balkans, the split of India into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan just to name a few

Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right?

 

Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe".

 

If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum.

 

I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments.

 

And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think.

 

 

Where were these moral imperatives when Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory of the Serb population, in Europe, at the end of the XX. century, with western support (or willful ignorance)? All or most of the refugees went to Serbia (which is fine, and expected), but where was the outcry, the sob stories, the unending media bleating? Not a finger was wagged in the direction of Croatia, but instead EU membership was the reward - for doing the same thing that ISIS is doing now.

 

PS: Europe is to blame for the "kosovar" (read: Albanian) asylum seekers too. Who is oppressing them in Kosovo in 2015? What are they seeking asylum from? Now that they have their own dysfunctional mafia state (made by US/Ger) you get to finance them from your welfare. 

Edited October 1, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[213374U]

Where were these moral imperatives when Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory of the Serb population, in Europe, at the end of the XX. century, with western support (or willful ignorance)? All or most of the refugees went to Serbia (which is fine, and expected), but where was the outcry, the sob stories, the unending media bleating? Not a finger was wagged in the direction of Croatia, but instead EU membership was the reward - for doing the same thing that ISIS is doing now.

 

PS: Europe is to blame for the "kosovar" (read: Albanian) asylum seekers too. Who is oppressing them in Kosovo in 2015? What are they seeking asylum from? Now that they have their own dysfunctional mafia state (made by US/Ger) you get to finance them from your welfare.

 

This may surprise you, but I completely agree. Which is why I'm actually fine with people in Europe dealing with the consequences of the blunders caused by "a few unaccountable ****s in Brussels". Last I checked, all EU members are still nominally democratic. If that is what it takes for people to ****ing wake up and smell the coffee, then so be it.

 

All I can say is that during the Yugoslav Wars I was too young to raise a stink anywhere, though. I'm neither a corporate media fatcat nor a NATO senior commander, so other than raising my voice there's little I can do to affect things. However, past wrongs don't justify current or future mistakes.

[BruceVC]

So now, that Russians started their airstrikes in Syria, what will be the outcome?

 

Personally I hope that moderates will just cease fighting and then the armed Syrian forces backed by Russians will clear the ISIS scum out of there, so there will be no more "war" in Syria.

 

In this one case I fully support Russians, and I hope they won't give a F... about any militants they will get into their hands. I can already imagine those ISIS fighters being tied up and locked up with pigs. I remember one scenario when a Russian war ship capture some pirates.

 

Guess what other pirates got from this message, when compared to treatment they received from Western navys, who at worst arrested them for a time and released later, but usually just sent them freely, disarmed.

 

Perhaps with savages you need to speak to them in the language they will understand.

I'm glad the Russians are getting more involved in global events apart from Putins irrational desire to create a geographical barrier between Russia and NATO\Western countries...like the Ukraine debacle 

 

They have correctly realized that they have to become more committed and interested in crisis points around the world that they could influence ....this way they are seen to  be " just trying to help the Syrians " and " nice and friendly " ...they will need  to convince certain countries of there new amicable personality in order to get sanction relief ..which they really need

 

But I don't care what there motives are, its good they want to " help "  ....Syria is such a calamitous mess and all they doing is committing airstrikes ....this has been proven to not be that effective at destroying  groups like ISIS, it does slow them down and can hamper there operating capacity,  as you need ground troops....so unless they send Russian troops I dont see what difference it will make ?

" 

[BruceVC]

 

@Bartimaeus: yeah, even if the person you're replying to won't bother with your posts, it's a public forum, so in the interest of keeping the topic going, it may be worth replying anyway. And then there's Bruce...

 

 

See, that's what I thought for a long time, too, but the truth is...no, it's really just not. There's definitely still *a* point in still replying, for sure, but is it a convincing point - a point that is enough that you should actually still do it? I just don't think so. If such...unsavory individuals want to demagogue and weasel their way into feeling like they win all their arguments (or at least don't lose them), I say let 'em: most people will pick up on such ridiculous antics after some time of being around them, anyways, and adjust accordingly. If other people without such terrible behavior - even completely unknown people - want to raise the same points, then I'll engage with them...but I personally have had my full share's worth of people who haven't had seemingly even one good faith discussion throughout their entire existence. So...that's that.

 

Barti its not nice to talk about people like that...I'm sure 2133 wants to engage in meaningful discussions even if we don't agree with him