Today's daily terror attack location is Belgium.

Zebra3

RustyNut wrote: »

Heres one

Another

Some more.

"It's only terrorism when 'they' do it."

satguy

We can have lots more candlelight vigils. That seems to be how we deal with this mess.

Bubbaclaus

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do cars hate us for not being Muslim? No
Do they want to destroy our way of life? No
Do they want use to live in submission? No

Have car manufacturers made great strides in terms of car safety? Yes
Are there car manufacturers who are setting dates from which their cars won't be involved in a collision that leads to a fatality? Yes

Your comparison is a bunch of whataboutery, deflection driven nonsense.

My point is that the hysterics have driven people to be afraid about something statistically insignificant.

232 people die each day on European roads, but you don't hear about people being afraid to get in a car.

Some lone idiot with a knife in some city most people have likely never visited injures a soldier and people are in hysterics and trying to cover themselves in bubble wrap and lock all the doors.

If would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Go out and enjoy your life and quit worrying about something that is statistically insignificant and extremely unlikely to ever effect you.

jackofalltrades

Zebra3 wrote: »

How about a map of all the European countries that have attacked other European countries and indeed non-European lands?



Really? Are you that ignorant? :rolleyes:

British war on Mesopotamia 1920s.

French war on Syria 1920s.

Zionist ethnic cleansing in Palestine ongoing since 1948.

British, French, Zionist attack in Egypt 1950s. Western propaganda calls these war crimes the "Suez Crisis". Goebbels eat your heart out.

British war on Yemen 1960s.

American attacks in Lebanon 1980s.

American and British attacks on Iraq 1990-91, 1998, 2003 to today.

American war on Afghanistan 2001 to today.

Western attacks on Libya 2011.

So you think the Military action of American and Britain are somehow the opposite side of the coin to Islamist attacks?
Was the truck attack in Nice a North African attack?

Il Fascista

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

My point is that the hysterics have driven people to be afraid about something statistically insignificant.

232 people die each day on European roads, but you don't hear about people being afraid to get in a car.

Some lone idiot with a knife in some city most people have likely never visited injures a soldier and people are in hysterics and trying to cover themselves in bubble wrap and lock all the doors.

If would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Go out and enjoy your life and quit worrying about something that is statistically insignificant and extremely unlikely to ever effect you.

If only people like you could think beyond your own time on earth, then maybe you'd see why others are worried. No one complaining here thinks they'll be a victim of one of these attacks!

Bubbaclaus

Il Fascista wrote: »

If only people like you could think beyond your own time on earth, then maybe you'd see why others are worried. No one complaining here thinks they'll be a victim of one of these attacks!

I'm of the opinion that the "close all borders and deport them all" brigade are the ones only thinking about their own time on earth.

jackofalltrades

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

My point is that the hysterics have driven people to be afraid about something statistically insignificant.

232 people die each day on European roads, but you don't hear about people being afraid to get in a car.

Some lone idiot with a knife in some city most people have likely never visited injures a soldier and people are in hysterics and trying to cover themselves in bubble wrap and lock all the doors.

If would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Go out and enjoy your life and quit worrying about something that is statistically insignificant and extremely unlikely to ever effect you.

Alright lets hear about your statistics then.
What are the odds of someone being caught up in a terrorist attack?
Whether that's being killed, injured, taken hostage, having a gun pointed at you(regardless of who does it), being told to get on the floor by police, having to run for your life or fend off some kind of attack.
Then there's people who witness these attacks whether they see or hear them.
And also people who tend to the injured or dying, people who work in hospitals, the police, fire brigade and people who clean blood off the streets.
Then you have to take into account all the family members, colleagues and friends off the above, who are either directly affected or hear stories of the above happening.
Terrorism has a significantly more profound effect than just the actual victims involved.

You comparison to road deaths is flawed.
Very few people are killed through malice on our roads.
If people were being deliberately targeted on a regular basis then I guess people would start to get afraid of going out driving/walking/cycling.

Bubbaclaus

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Alright lets hear about your statistics then.
What are the odds of someone being caught up in a terrorist attack?
Whether that's being killed, injured, taken hostage, having a gun pointed at you(regardless of who does it), being told to get on the floor by police, having to run for your life or fend off some kind of attack.
Then there's people who witness these attacks whether they see or hear them.
And also people who tend to the injured or dying, people who work in hospitals, the police, fire brigade and people who clean blood off the streets.
Then you have to take into account all the family members, colleagues and friends off the above, who are either directly affected or hear stories of the above happening.
Terrorism has a significantly more profound effect than just the actual victims involved.

The majority of that applies to all incidents, including traffic collisions.

Unless you are going to claim more than 2.5 million EU citizens are effected by terrorism, then the statistic rounds to 0% of the population being effected by it.

150,000 people are either killed or permanently disabled in traffic incidents in the EU each year. That may sound like a very high figure, but it's a tiny 0.02% of the total population and also statistically insignificant.

24/7 news, everyone having internet access and social media have caused this hysteria. The most extreme opinions stand out. Blows my mind that people feed off it. Genuinely get excited by such insignificance to the extent mass deportations and a Big Brother like State are required.

Mind numbing stupidity.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What do you want? After hours becoming "hourly terror alert news"

This is your mess, Joey. You were one of the biggest cheerleaders for open border mass immigration, despite some very experienced international experts spelling out to you what the security consequences would be.

You broke it, so suck it up and deal with it now.

jackofalltrades

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The majority of that applies to all incidents, including traffic collisions.

Some of it applies to all incidents, some of the scarier bits don't.

Unless you are going to claim more than 2.5 million EU citizens are effected by terrorism, then the statistic rounds to 0% of the population being effected by it.

150,000 people are either killed or permanently disabled in traffic incidents in the EU each year. That may sound like a very high figure, but it's a tiny 0.02% of the total population and also statistically insignificant.

How many of those people in traffic accidents were deliberately targeted?
Are people driving/cycling or walking around worried about being targeted because they aren't a muslim.
You seem to be continually ignoring that part of my argument.

24/7 news, everyone having internet access and social media have caused this hysteria. The most extreme opinions stand out. Blows my mind that people feed off it. Genuinely get excited by such insignificance to the extent mass deportations and a Big Brother like State are required.

Mind numbing stupidity.

People have been worried about terrorist attacks long before the advent of 24/7 news, the internet and social media.

Widdershins

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Some of it applies to all incidents, some of the scarier bits don't.

How many of those people in traffic accidents were deliberately targeted?
Are people driving/cycling or walking around worried about being targeted because they aren't a muslim.
You seem to be continually ignoring that part of my argument.
People have been worried about terrorist attacks long before the advent of 24/7 news, the internet and social media.

And traffic incidents aren't 'part of' anything. They're not part of a wider plot, they're not deliberate, and they're something people can control to some extent, be it by not drink driving, by wearing seatbelts etc. etc. So people can do everything in their power to prevent them, and there's not much to discuss really. That's why there are threads on Islamism instead of threads on the other example.

The traffic comparison is deeply flawed but it's all people like that poster actually have with which to deflect attention away from Islamism and jihad and terrorism.

The over-eager effort to deflect, deflect, deflect is strange. It makes sense that people will discuss this, as it's unlike any kind of war the West has experienced to date. It's a more-or-less global, guerilla war.

A good response I once heard was ''Coronary disease was a bigger killer of Brits during the Blitz than the Luftwaffe, so does that mean they were foolish to worry about the Blitz?''

There are only a few explanations I can think of, one is that some people are well-meaning, misguided and want to protect Muslims from what they perceive as racism, and they're just not bright enough to discern between racism and any discussion involving people who happen to mostly be brown....then some people may perhaps have a certain amount of sympathy for the Islamsts goals..and then there are others who just aren't aware of much of what has happened, is happening around the worlds so because of their very limited knowledge they find it all ''hysterical'' and overblown. Or, the deflectors are scared, themselves, and they hate that people are talking about this, because it terrifies them.

Ulysses Gaze

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The majority of that applies to all incidents, including traffic collisions.

Unless you are going to claim more than 2.5 million EU citizens are effected by terrorism, then the statistic rounds to 0% of the population being effected by it.

150,000 people are either killed or permanently disabled in traffic incidents in the EU each year. That may sound like a very high figure, but it's a tiny 0.02% of the total population and also statistically insignificant.

24/7 news, everyone having internet access and social media have caused this hysteria. The most extreme opinions stand out. Blows my mind that people feed off it. Genuinely get excited by such insignificance to the extent mass deportations and a Big Brother like State are required.

Mind numbing stupidity.

Why do you people keep on with this false equivalence?

People died on the roads. More people die from peanut allergies.

The key factor you all miss is - Intent.

Did the peanut intend to kill the person? Did the car or driver intend to kill the person?

FFS.....

And if you really think that this is all statistically insignificant, why not just travel over to Manchester, Barcelona, Paris, Nice, Berlin et al and tell the families of those murdered..

"Hey, sorry about you loss but...if it makes you feel any better it is statistically insignificant."

Mind numbingly stupid alright...

Bubbaclaus

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Why do you people keep on with this false equivalence?

People died on the roads. More people die from peanut allergies.

The key factor you all miss is - Intent.

Did the peanut intend to kill the person? Did the car or driver intend to kill the person?

FFS.....

And if you really think that this is all statistically insignificant, why not just travel over to Manchester, Barcelona, Paris, Nice, Berlin et al and tell the families of those murdered..

"Hey, sorry about you loss but...if it makes you feel any better it is statistically insignificant."

Mind numbingly stupid alright...

Why does intent matter? Either way you are lying dead on the ground. Genuinely don't get the "but...but...but intent!1!!!11!!!!" argument.

But sure....lets just go ahead and continue the hysterics brought about by dim witted individuals on social media and let's tear Europe apart ourselves out of fear someone else does it instead.

Zebra3

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you think the Military action of American and Britain are somehow the opposite side of the coin to Islamist attacks?
Was the truck attack in Nice a North African attack?

Of course they are not the opposite side of the coin.

British and American crimes in the Middle East have slaughtered vastly greater numbers of people than these Islamist attacks in Europe.

But let's not allow the truth get in the way of hysteria and propaganda.

That wouldn't be good for the whores of war.

Canis Lupus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How would you go about identifying who is Muslim?

It shouldn't be that hard. Once we identify them perhaps we can make them wear a symbol visibly on their clothes... Something celestial... Like a star or maybe the crescent moon. Yeah the moon would work.

PuppyMcPupFace

Why are people playing down these attacks?

They're real, they're happening now and we'll be a statistic soon. No question.

Do you feel you're better than others if you go round putting those "refugees welcome here " stickers up and we say "it after they've been vetted".

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MysticMonk wrote: »

People like you are part of the problem.

People who use logic? I don't believe so. However, sensationalist could very well be categorized as problematic. "Everyday"... Sensationalist tabloid clickbait. Shíts not good in Europe, but reel in the

Negative_G wrote: »

Another day, another attack on western society by the religion of peace.

I see the resident AH Islamic apologist hasn't yet began their defense of all things Islam, which is surprising.

Can't be long though.

Having an opinion which differs from your own, or from the "deport all muslims" stance, doesn't make one an "Islamic apologist", or anything of the sort.

As for "defense of all things Islam", I don't believe I have witnessed it on boards.ie to be honest. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it doesn't actually happen and your fond of building things of straw.

BoJack Horseman

Zebra3 wrote: »

British and American crimes in the Middle East have slaughtered vastly greater numbers of people than these Islamist attacks in Europe.

Indeed.
It is our fault really.
Jihad is right & the thousands of girls of Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Newcastle & so on were just retaliation.
Tis their fault.....they were just asking for it
Inshallah!

The stark reality is that "the West" has made enemies of these people, and then stupidly invited large segments of their populations to live here.
If they had not been invited (or allowed to stay) then we wouldn't have threads like this. If the Jihadidsts were not here in the first place, they wouldn't be able to carry out any of these "low skill" attacks.

Zebra3

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.
It is our fault really.
Jihad is right & the thousands of girls of Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale, Newcastle & so on were just retaliation.
Tis their fault.....they were just asking for it
Inshallah!

It's not "our fault".

I don't support or glorify those westerners who take part or instigate war on innocent people in the Middle East.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

The stark reality is that "the West" has made enemies of these people, and then stupidly invited large segments of their populations to live here.
If they had not been invited (or allowed to stay) then we wouldn't have threads like this. If the Jihadidsts were not here in the first place, they wouldn't be able to carry out any of these "low skill" attacks.

Although for various reasons I don't agree that this is a result of Western actions, it is often the argument that people use to deflect from the fact that it's a religious war being waged almost globally by Islamists, and if they are going to use that argument then it does have to be asked, why let these people in, if you believe we have made an enemy of them already and retaliation is inevitable. Strangely those people seem to think Westerners as 'collateral damage', in the attempt to resettle large numbers of refugees and migrants, is acceptable but when it comes to accidental deaths in the course of bombing campaigns aimed at ISIS they would say it is unacceptable, and grounds for terror attacks on the West.

Samaris

I think it's more that because (in part) of Western inference in the MIddle East over decades, it has contributed to a number of wars from which thousands are fleeing. Amongst those who are fleeing are a very few that either are radicalised or, more often, become radicalised. Teenagers and young men are the most likely to get sucked into it because, let's face it, teenagers are largely idiots who can be swayed by things like nationalism, religious extremism and holy warfare. Teenagers are very prone to misty-eyed romanticism and always have been. In this case, it's absolutely a problem.

A second problem is that many traditionally held Islamic views are not compatible with western secularised countries. Most Muslims get along fine with this and keep to their religion within the law. There are exceptions and that needs to be dealt with too, same as we don't allow Christian extremists to burn witches or hang LGBT people.

The argument is not really "All Islamists want us dead so why are we inviting them in", it's "there is a dangerous cohort of Islamic extremists from which many Muslims are fleeing. Some of them might get in with the refugees." You know, it's a valid point without getting hysterical about how we have MADE ENEMIES OF A QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION WHO WANT US ALL DEAD.

I mean, god forbid context be allowed in a debate that hits people in the passions and all, but it's helpful.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's more that because (in part) of Western inference in the MIddle East over decades, it has contributed to a number of wars from which thousands are fleeing. Amongst those who are fleeing are a very few that either are radicalised or, more often, become radicalised. Teenagers and young men are the most likely to get sucked into it because, let's face it, teenagers are largely idiots who can be swayed by things like nationalism, religious extremism and holy warfare. Teenagers are very prone to misty-eyed romanticism and always have been. In this case, it's absolutely a problem.

A second problem is that many traditionally held Islamic views are not compatible with western secularised countries. Most Muslims get along fine with this and keep to their religion within the law. There are exceptions and that needs to be dealt with too, same as we don't allow Christian extremists to burn witches or hang LGBT people.

The argument is not really "All Islamists want us dead so why are we inviting them in", it's "there is a dangerous cohort of Islamic extremists from which many Muslims are fleeing. Some of them might get in with the refugees." You know, it's a valid point without getting hysterical about how we have MADE ENEMIES OF A QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION WHO WANT US ALL DEAD.

I mean, god forbid context be allowed in a debate that hits people in the passions and all, but it's helpful.

The point I'm making is that having invited in these people we have seeded a catalyst that allows for "home grown" terrorist cells to form. It is correct to say that only a tiny percentage will actually act upon these urges.

But this fact can't be avoided, "If they weren’t here, they couldn't act!"

Sand

Samaris wrote: »

Amongst those who are fleeing are a very few that either are radicalised or, more often, become radicalised. Teenagers and young men are the most likely to get sucked into it because, let's face it, teenagers are largely idiots who can be swayed by things like nationalism, religious extremism and holy warfare. Teenagers are very prone to misty-eyed romanticism and always have been. In this case, it's absolutely a problem.

And along with them are a much greater number who are not radicalised enough to take up arms, but are radicalised enough to support to the aims and moral views of the radicals and look the other way. Wait 25 years, after the initial generation who have some gratitude have raised their children schooled in those views. Those children will largely be self-segregated from the host society, and will have a dangerous mix of contempt and resentment for it.

Europe has not yet demonstrated it can absorb and integrate these communities who do not want to be integrated with a society they view with contempt. That is the context in which the argument for open borders needs to be viewed in. Europe should demonstrate the ability to address the multicultural wonders of Molenbeek before creating another hundred Molenbeeks.

And even then, beyond that whole issue there is a question of if it is really wise to annually introduce hundreds of thousands of young, male, unskilled illegal migrants who have no papers, qualifications or economically useful skills into a society that frankly does not need them. Its not a recipe for future peace and prosperity and its frankly amazing the open borders movement has never been seriously pressured to explain itself.

Samaris

What "Open borders movement"? Seriously, please explain this thoroughly, because I rarely to ever see anyone defending "open borders". I think I have seen one in all the time this argument has been circulating and he wasn't even on boards or particularly commenting on the situation. But everyone who goes "hang on wait a minute" at the concept of evicting thousands of residents, the vast majority of whom don't have so much as a parking ticket and sending them back (or sometimes just TO) warzones are suddenly and inevitably accused of supporting a bloody mythical open borders policy.

Yes, there is free movement between states in the EU. There is not free movement between the entire world and the EU and never has been. There is a particularly nasty crisis at the moment that needs to be dealt with and I highly doubt it will be solved at either extreme of the argument.

wakka12

Samaris wrote: »

What "Open borders movement"? Seriously, please explain this thoroughly, because I rarely to ever see anyone defending "open borders". I think I have seen one in all the time this argument has been circulating and he wasn't even on boards or particularly commenting on the situation. But everyone who goes "hang on wait a minute" at the concept of evicting thousands of residents, the vast majority of whom don't have so much as a parking ticket and sending them back (or sometimes just TO) warzones are suddenly and inevitably accused of supporting a bloody mythical open borders policy.

Yes, there is free movement between states in the EU. There is not free movement between the entire world and the EU and never has been. There is a particularly nasty crisis at the moment that needs to be dealt with and I highly doubt it will be solved at either extreme of the argument.

The heavy criticism of any defence forces which left migrants stranded in the mediterranean is enough evidence to show that much of european society supports open borders to some extent.

FraR

Millions of people entered Europe illegally in the last few years. Even our own navy is picking up migrants off the Libyan coast and bringing them 200 km to Europe.

And you still have people claiming that we don't have open borders!

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

What "Open borders movement"? Seriously, please explain this thoroughly, because I rarely to ever see anyone defending "open borders".

Usually these people are business leaders who see inward migration as a means to increase economic growth while at the same time reducing labour costs by employing unskilled migrants for less than what the indigenous population are willing to work for.

These "captains of industry" often sponsor and hide behind politicians who support multiculturalism and free inward migration.

Sand

Samaris wrote: »

What "Open borders movement"? Seriously, please explain this thoroughly, because I rarely to ever see anyone defending "open borders". I think I have seen one in all the time this argument has been circulating and he wasn't even on boards or particularly commenting on the situation. But everyone who goes "hang on wait a minute" at the concept of evicting thousands of residents, the vast majority of whom don't have so much as a parking ticket and sending them back (or sometimes just TO) warzones are suddenly and inevitably accused of supporting a bloody mythical open borders policy.

Yes, there is free movement between states in the EU. There is not free movement between the entire world and the EU and never has been. There is a particularly nasty crisis at the moment that needs to be dealt with and I highly doubt it will be solved at either extreme of the argument.

Open borders (to me at least) is the view that Europe is a wealthy, prosperous society and it is natural, understandable and just that people should attempt to enter Europe by any means necessary. That Europe's policy should not be to defend its borders or prevent illegal migration (which is claimed to be impossible in any case), but instead assist and enable it so as to enjoy the benefits of this migration. Up to an including collaborating with the human traffickers profiting on it. What those benefits are, I am less sure on but I understand they are perceived to be greater economic growth, highly skilled workers, greater cultural diversity and reparation for past European crimes.

The key thing is the argument for open borders shifts: when the economic case is disproven, then the benefits of diversity are claimed. When those are disproven then its portrayed as reparation for past crimes. When that is disproven, the economic case is resurrected once more in a grand circular argument. But one thing remains consistent - the policy has to be to continue to enable and assist mass illegal migration into Europe.

FraR

Deleted User wrote: »

Usually these people are business leaders who see inward migration as a means to increase economic growth while at the same time reducing labour costs by employing unskilled migrants for less than what the indigenous population are willing to work for.

These "captains of industry" often sponsor and hide behind politicians who support multiculturalism and free inward migration.

The UN terms it "replacement immigration."

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

That's the end game here. To radically alter the demographics of Europe and to replace the native people.

Richard Hillman

wakka12 wrote: »

The heavy criticism of any defence forces which left migrants stranded in the mediterranean is enough evidence to show that much of european society supports open borders to some extent.

Criticism from who? The media? Leftist politicians? They are part of the Dark Alliance.

Politicians would never put abandoning the collection service in the Mediterranean to a public vote, because they know what result they would get. And it wouldn't fit the objectives of the Alliance.

Stopping islamic inmigration is massively popular in Europe. Which casts the shadow and exposes the Dark Alliance of politicians and media because they go against it.

PuppyMcPupFace

Did anyone watch The State on C4 last week ?

I really hope that was badly researched and 100% fake because if not, those coming back here (or already returned) are going to cause all manner of problems.

take everything

Samaris wrote: »

I think it's more that because (in part) of Western inference in the MIddle East over decades, it has contributed to a number of wars from which thousands are fleeing. Amongst those who are fleeing are a very few that either are radicalised or, more often, become radicalised. Teenagers and young men are the most likely to get sucked into it because, let's face it, teenagers are largely idiots who can be swayed by things like nationalism, religious extremism and holy warfare. Teenagers are very prone to misty-eyed romanticism and always have been. In this case, it's absolutely a problem.

A second problem is that many traditionally held Islamic views are not compatible with western secularised countries. Most Muslims get along fine with this and keep to their religion within the law. There are exceptions and that needs to be dealt with too, same as we don't allow Christian extremists to burn witches or hang LGBT people.

The argument is not really "All Islamists want us dead so why are we inviting them in", it's "there is a dangerous cohort of Islamic extremists from which many Muslims are fleeing. Some of them might get in with the refugees." You know, it's a valid point without getting hysterical about how we have MADE ENEMIES OF A QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION WHO WANT US ALL DEAD.

I mean, god forbid context be allowed in a debate that hits people in the passions and all, but it's helpful.

I think this is a good post that captures some of the complexity involved.

As you say, there seems to be a basic stupidity to some Western leaders decisions (Merkel etc) with regard to this.

And sometimes I wonder if it's wilful stupidity. That's when one strays into conspiracy stuff to explain really what's going on. Are they trying to instigate a race war?

I mean what is wrong with doing immigration properly. In this day and age, it shouldn't be difficult to put resources into regulating intake into one's country. In the case of the 1 million to Germany, surely some vetting could have been done (those in greatest need, no criminal background etc). But nothing like that was done from what I understand.

After the vetting Germany would still get a sizeable intake who would eventually hopefully contribute to its society and economy.

What is wrong with western leaders that they can't do this basic stuff.

Are they just cowed by the liberofascist climate that their brain shuts down.

Or is their something more sinister going on.

Samaris

Honestly, I think at base it's acceptance that countries have had net immigration at times and emigration at others. There is a gradual decline of western societies in terms of population. That is just how population works and it was inevitable that western populations would hit it first. Remember all the stuff about "the world population is getting too big, people need to stop having children!". Yeees, well, about that, that will happen naturally. It will happen first in countries where the populations do not need to breed to over-populate because we don't have the same risks of warfare, starvation, disease or any of the other things that often kill off small children in developing countries. Western societies are primarily white. Western societies were far more likely to be nearer to that stage (with the notable exception of Japan).

So there's an element to it that if our countries are to keep on at the same level they are, they will need a certain size of workforce. With the baby boomer generation all getting elderly at the same time (during this population decline), the problem is more stark. At the same time, there are people fleeing war and the inevitable famines/diseases that follow. There has always been a certain "law of the sea" that ensures countries take in refugees fleeing truly awful conditions. It's a human rights thing. It also was seen as beneficial because our workforces are declining. How many people are willing to see a sharp reduction in our economies to mirror the population and workforce decline? Surely that's better than the "browning" of our societies? There does not seem to be an answer for that and in the extreme cases, people are even pushing against other white people immigrating. It's no coincidence that threads have started popping up regarding British people getting Irish passports. It's even less of a coincidence that Eastern Europeans were so derided as "EU economic migrants".

What was not really forseen was that many countries within the EU - take France for an example - have had Muslim populations that they've not really known what to do with. The banlieues of Paris have been a problem for forty years or more. More Muslims come in and are seen as an awkward problem. The other issues that were not foreseen was the rapid rise of right-wing nationalism which has fed on this whole "white genocide" issue to the point where they're making it the core of the debate while treating it as the obvious answer is to kick out the foreigners. This will not solve the core issue. Also the problems I mentioned before, cultural clashes - the big wave was always going to be a shock, and I feel that the whole idea of refugees being kept in the country of first landing was also really ill-advised. It ensured that vast groups would be stuck in the same place who may not be able to support all of them, it makes integration harder, both because of the large groups stuck together and because of the natural resentment and distrust from the natives of the countries where they are kept. It should have been much more spread out from the get-go, where integration could have been handled far better than in this mad organic clump-them-together-and-demand-integration approach.

However, it was not handled differently, and the situation is now bad enough and resentment is high enough that yes, we may have to consider closing borders and trying not to think too much about those trapped in their own hells. And somehow figure out how to keep our economies growing (because we have a weird focus on economic GROWTH over stability) with a decreasing population. I guess we're at least still white?

Richard Hillman

take everything wrote: »

I think this is a good post that captures some of the complexity involved.

As you say, there seems to be a basic stupidity to some Western leaders decisions (Merkel etc) with regard to this.

And sometimes I wonder if it's wilful stupidity. That's when one strays into conspiracy stuff to explain really what's going on. Are they trying to instigate a race war?

I mean what is wrong with doing immigration properly. In this day and age, it shouldn't be difficult to put resources into regulating intake into one's country. In the case of the 1 million to Germany, surely some vetting could have been done (those in greatest need, no criminal background etc). But nothing like that was done from what I understand.

After the vetting Germany would still get a sizeable intake who would eventually hopefully contribute to its society and economy.

What is wrong with western leaders that they can't do this basic stuff.

Are they just cowed by the liberofascist climate that their brain shuts down.

Or is their something more sinister going on.

I mentioned before that the CDU Church in Berlin is literally next door to the Saudi embassy. Angela Merkel makes confession in this church. They definitely have dirt on her.

The Saudi's are wiser than people make out. They know full well that the Oil will run out eventually. If they continued on obliviously the Shia powers will wipe the Sunnis out in the middle east. Their only hope is to flood regions outside of the Middle East of Sunni Islam. This is why they are spending all that money on the Mosques and "Cultural Centres".

When the war comes and if the Shia are at the gates of Mecca, Islamic Europe and Africa will be ready to fight for and fund the Sunni's.

Richard Hillman

One thing that befuddles me on the pension and workforce question is that we have scores of people around the world trying to get to places like Europe and America.

We have central/South Americans crossing the Mojave Desert at the hand of Drug Cartels just to get into America, we have Chinese people coming in to Europe on Shipping containers, we have people from South East Asia having to join dodgy language colleges to get into Europe, we have Ukrainians in Direct Provision centres.

We make people with our shared values, people who are not trying to kill us jump through hoops to get here. Whilst we offer a Taxi service for the dregs of the planet, and I mean the absolute DREGs of the planet. The ****test, dumbest, most uncivilised dregs of planet earth are getting a Taxi and we make people who can genuinely contribute to our society jump through hoops. This why is just doesn't add up for me???

I am pro immigration. I am pro Good Immigration. I am against letting the dregs of the planet into our lands.

Bubbaclaus

Richard Hillman wrote: »

One thing that befuddles me on the pension and workforce question is that we have scores of people around the world trying to get to places like Europe and America.

We have central/South Americans crossing the Mojave Desert at the hand of Drug Cartels just to get into America, we have Chinese people coming in to Europe on Shipping containers, we have people from South East Asia having to join dodgy language colleges to get into Europe, we have Ukrainians in Direct Provision centres.

We make people with our shared values, people who are not trying to kill us jump through hoops to get here. Whilst we offer a Taxi service for the dregs of the planet, and I mean the absolute DREGs of the planet. The ****test, dumbest, most uncivilised dregs of planet earth are getting a Taxi and we make people who can genuinely contribute to our society jump through hoops. This why is just doesn't add up for me???

I am pro immigration. I am pro Good Immigration. I am against letting the dregs of the planet into our lands.

Will be interesting to see who you consider "the dregs of the planet" to be?

artichoke

take everything wrote: »

I think this is a good post that captures some of the complexity involved.

As you say, there seems to be a basic stupidity to some Western leaders decisions (Merkel etc) with regard to this.

And sometimes I wonder if it's wilful stupidity. That's when one strays into conspiracy stuff to explain really what's going on. Are they trying to instigate a race war?

I mean what is wrong with doing immigration properly. In this day and age, it shouldn't be difficult to put resources into regulating intake into one's country. In the case of the 1 million to Germany, surely some vetting could have been done (those in greatest need, no criminal background etc). But nothing like that was done from what I understand.

After the vetting Germany would still get a sizeable intake who would eventually hopefully contribute to its society and economy.

What is wrong with western leaders that they can't do this basic stuff.

Are they just cowed by the liberofascist climate that their brain shuts down.

Or is their something more sinister going on.

Nothing sinister going on there. Refugees were already on their way to Europe before Merkel reacted. Budapest had 150 000 registered refugees in August 2015. The sad incident of the drowned child Alan Kurdi in September of the same year which made global headlines was the trigger that lead to Merkels decision to invite the Syrians to Germany. Before there was little done to act on the rising number of refugees drowning in the sea.
The one huge mistake Merkel made was that she invited refugees into the country without the requirement of registration, without any check up about background. That lead to refugees refusing to register in Ungary. That was the most stupidest thing she has ever done letting people into the country unchecked.

Other then that I do think it was a human and right thing to do helping those escaping war, don't forget they escaped the terror of ISIS too. Only that in hindsight had Europe acted faster, set up registration centres earlier on the chaos could have been avoided.

Nabber

Talk of 17 attacks in 2 years?

I assume that's only Europe?

2017 has a 900 attack and 5000+ deaths.
People who dismiss the issue of Islamic based terror tend to also ignore the issues of Boko Haram. Most ignore it because it's black Muslim on black Christian.

In my opinion, the whole situation with ME migrating to Europe and BLM in the states, a fanatical white guy who's a great orator will rally the masses much like Germany 1920s

Sand

Samaris wrote: »

So there's an element to it that if our countries are to keep on at the same level they are, they will need a certain size of workforce. With the baby boomer generation all getting elderly at the same time (during this population decline), the problem is more stark. At the same time, there are people fleeing war and the inevitable famines/diseases that follow. There has always been a certain "law of the sea" that ensures countries take in refugees fleeing truly awful conditions. It's a human rights thing. It also was seen as beneficial because our workforces are declining. How many people are willing to see a sharp reduction in our economies to mirror the population and workforce decline?

With automation, the economic benefit of low skilled workers is significantly declining. As it stands, studies in the UK have demonstrated that highly educated/skilled workers from the EU benefit the economy, contributing more through taxes than they take out in benefits. Lowly skilled/uneducated workers from outside the EU largely are a drain on the economy.

Population decline is not in itself a dramatic problem. The 'baby boomer' solution to population decline of importing population growth is and will be a dramatic problem for the next 100-200 years.

RDM_83 again

Sand wrote: »

Samaris wrote: »

So there's an element to it that if our countries are to keep on at the same level they are, they will need a certain size of workforce. With the baby boomer generation all getting elderly at the same time (during this population decline), the problem is more stark. At the same time, there are people fleeing war and the inevitable famines/diseases that follow. There has always been a certain "law of the sea" that ensures countries take in refugees fleeing truly awful conditions. It's a human rights thing. It also was seen as beneficial because our workforces are declining. How many people are willing to see a sharp reduction in our economies to mirror the population and workforce decline?

With automation, the economic benefit of low skilled workers is significantly declining. As it stands, studies in the UK have demonstrated that highly educated/skilled workers from the EU benefit the economy, contributing more through taxes than they take out in benefits. Lowly skilled/uneducated workers from outside the EU largely are a drain on the economy.

Population decline is not in itself a dramatic problem. The 'baby boomer' solution to population decline of importing population growth is and will be a dramatic problem for the next 100-200 years.

It's also just odd to use it as an argument when the most of southern Europe still has far too high an unemployment rate

Spider Web

The fashion of people downplaying the attacks in Europe in order to show how "above it all" they are - and whatabouting and accusing people of hysteria, and saying you could be killed in a traffic accident more easily, is quite disrespectful to the victims in my opinion.

It's like getting their dig in is more important than what's happened.

Spider Web

Spider Web wrote: »

The fashion of people downplaying the attacks in Europe in order to show how "above it all" they are - and whatabouting and accusing people of hysteria, and saying you could be killed in a traffic accident more easily, is quite disrespectful to the victims in my opinion.

It's like getting their dig in is more important than what's happened.

Yes, there is a world of difference between the unintended consequences of a bad decision taken in a vehicle on the roads and a deliberate act to kill/maim someone.

Zebra3

Maybe if people stopped cheerleading the bombing of certain countries, maybe the bombing would stop, and so many people wouldn't have to flee those countries.

Just a thought there for the pro-war brigade.

Rumpy Pumpy

Zebra3 wrote: »

Maybe if people stopped cheerleading the bombing of certain countries, maybe the bombing would stop, and so many people wouldn't have to flee those countries.

Just a thought there for the pro-war brigade.

What bombing is going on in Morocco?

Spider Web

Zebra3 wrote: »

Maybe if people stopped cheerleading the bombing of certain countries, maybe the bombing would stop, and so many people wouldn't have to flee those countries.

Just a thought there for the pro-war brigade.

And then there are the people who disagree with all of it, no matter what side.

Zebra3

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

What bombing is going on in Morocco?

None, but your question is not related to the point I made.

PuppyMcPupFace

I was told by a Labour (UK) supporter that I was "directly" responsible for the Ariana Grande bombing as I was against mass immigration - apparently due to this I alienated and disenfranchised young Muslim men in the UK and helped to radicalise them and make them feel they have no other choice.

I still don't understand that view.

Widdershins

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

I was told by a Labour (UK) supporter that I was "directly" responsible for the Ariana Grande bombing as I was against mass immigration - apparently due to this I alienated and disenfranchised young Muslim men in the UK and helped to radicalise them and make them feel they have no other choice.

I still don't understand that view.

Imo, Labour UK is attracting startling numbers of crazy people these days. I know a lot of people who have bailed out of that sinking ship.

I suppose that person supports the gender-segregated Labour meetings, too!

PuppyMcPupFace

They do yes sadly.

They also agreed that the MP who had to resign because she raised the issue of sexual abuse amongst Pakistani men against white British girls was "a disgrace" and "no better than the KKK in America".

Oh they think Jeremy Corbyn can walk on water.