Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Eight injured in "terrorist" stabbing attack Sweden
Options
Comments
-
The thread is about a terrorist attack. I responded with comments on terrorist attacks. Perhaps if you think discussing terrorist attacks in a thread about a terrorist attack is off topic, it isnt me who needs to find a new thread in which to ply their wares?!
Myself, I'll leave it to a moderator to decide if my posts are off topic....
From your own link though,
Isn't it wonderful when someone sticks up a link without reading it and it states the opposite of what they're trying to argue.
If you read on, you'd see that text refers to western Europe, but for all Europe my point, graph and link stands! Yours doesn't.
Seriously tho, why muddy the waters?
Its a thread about Islamic terrorism attacks, and Islamphobia. Its not a general terrorism thread, and fear of being killed by terrorists Why make a point and back it up with irrelevant information. The thread is also about people being attacked. Why not argue more people were attacked over the past 2000 years than now. Plenty of scope for you to drag it off topic
Islamic attacks in Europe are on the rise. Simple fact.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »If you read on, you'd see that text refers to western Europe, but for all Europe my point, graph and link stands! Yours doesn't.
Seriously tho, why muddy the waters?
Its a thread about Islamic terrorism attacks, and Islamphobia. Its not a general terrorism thread, and fear of being killed by terrorists Why make a point and back it up with irrelevant information. The thread is also about people being attacked. Why not argue more people were attacked over the past 2000 years than now. Plenty of scope for you to drag it off topic
Islamic attacks in Europe are on the rise. Simple fact.
I mis-stated Europe once and have repeatedly clarified that I was referring to Western Europe, hence my statement that"The peak numbers of terrorist attacks per annum specifically in Western Europe occurred during the 70s and 80s" is what I stated, this is supported by the document I provided.
This is a thread about a specific terrorist attack, not a general thread about Islamphobia or all Islamic terrorist attacks. Posting about other terrorist attacks because they share his Muslim background is no more on topic than posting about other terrorist attacks because they share his terrorist background. Either discussing other terrorist attacks is on topic or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. Either way, as I stated I'll wait for a moderator to tell me if my posts are off topic rather than you. Feel free to report them should you believe them to be so.
The purpose of the information is quite clear; most adults have lived through periods of greater risk of being killed by a terrorist. If you currently fear being attacked by Islamic terrorists and didn't have this level of fear of terrorist attacks during periods when terrorist attacks were actually more common then your fear is of the Islamic part more than the terrorist part.
I for one would be more concerned about my overall likelihood of death than the ideology of the person who did it.0 -
I visited the area on a school exchange trip 23 years ago.0
-
Look up...the goals of isis / isil...
Their stated goals are to rid the world of Christianity.... and for Islamic culture and aims to prevail globally... they don’t want to live in peace, they want to take over, they don’t want to attack western targets, countries, cities, people out of anger, hate, revenge etc... it’s tactical.. it’s to win out... for Islamic Power to win out... with that going on, ongoing...they have stated these goals..0 -
And as unfortunate as that is, at no point in history have we lived without where threat of terrorist attack....and at most points through history, that risk has been higher than it is now....and so, my point continues to be that current fears are overblown.
We have lived with and without the threat of terrorist attacks...
Fear or otherwise of terrorism doesn’t define us.
What we can do is as long as threats or even potential threats exist, that we don’t for whatever reason, leave ourselves as a target...just because it suits the agenda of the EU and the far left.
Whatever about the UK and it’s choice to depart the EU... it will make all be it not immediately, the UK a safer place, long term.
It will no longer be importing more radicalism and terrorism. While ok those attacks and ideals could be breeding within its walls, it’s easier to deal with.... when you don’t have the EU stopping you dealing with the threats and terrorists expeditiously.
If they discovered a terror cell they can expel them...or anybody behaving in a manner that threatens the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. That should be the right of every nation.0 -
Advertisement
-
We have lived with and without the threat of terrorist attacks...
Fear or otherwise of terrorism doesn’t define us.
What we can do is as long as threats or even potential threats exist, that we don’t for whatever reason, leave ourselves as a target...just because it suits the agenda of the EU and the far left.
Whatever about the UK and it’s choice to depart the EU... it will make all be it not immediately, the UK a safer place, long term.
It will no longer be importing more radicalism and terrorism. While ok those attacks and ideals could be breeding within its walls, it’s easier to deal with.... when you don’t have the EU stopping you dealing with the threats and terrorists expeditiously.
If they discovered a terror cell they can expel them...or anybody behaving in a manner that threatens the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. That should be the right of every nation.
Can you point me to a time when we lived without the threat of terrorist violence? Perhaps even a single year where Western Europe went without a terrorist attack?
Fear may not define you personally in this regard, but as we have posters trying to defend their own admitted Islamphobia, it certainly does define some. Given the miniscule threat in absolute terms, I'll continue to concern myself with more pressing threats than worrying about Muhammad in my Software Engineering team being an ISIS sleeper agent.
Given that immigration from outside the EU was always within Britain's control, and the likelihood that trade deals will come with visa requirements attached, I very much doubt your other assertion....particularly given that immigration from EU nations has been on the decline and from outside the EU on the increase since the Brexir vote passed.....and also that as they're no longer an EU member, they will no longer be able to return asylum seekers to other EU states under the Dublin Regulations. Nor have they stopped being party to the Geneva Conventions, so they will still continue to have responsibilities towards refugees/asylum seekers who present there. I'm really struggling to see precisely how you suspect Brexit will have any impact on this except potentially (what you would consider) negatively?
Can you point me to the EU legislation which would prevent the deportation of a person found to be part of a terror cell by the way?0 -
Can you point me to a time when we lived without the threat of terrorist violence? Perhaps even a single year where Western Europe went without a terrorist attack?
Fear may not define you personally in this regard, but as we have posters trying to defend their own admitted Islamphobia, it certainly does define some. Given the miniscule threat in absolute terms, I'll continue to concern myself with more pressing threats than worrying about Muhammad in my Software Engineering team being an ISIS sleeper agent.
Given that immigration from outside the EU was always within Britain's control, and the likelihood that trade deals will come with visa requirements attached, I very much doubt your other assertion....particularly given that immigration from EU nations has been on the decline and from outside the EU on the increase since the Brexir vote passed.....and also that as they're no longer an EU member, they will no longer be able to return asylum seekers to other EU states under the Dublin Regulations. Nor have they stopped being party to the Geneva Conventions, so they will still continue to have responsibilities towards refugees/asylum seekers who present there. I'm really struggling to see precisely how you suspect Brexit will have any impact on this except potentially (what you would consider) negatively?
Can you point me to the EU legislation which would prevent the deportation of a person found to be part of a terror cell by the way?
What good is the ability of deporting a person, especially in the aftermath of them causing or contributing to damages, injury, loss of live... contributing to us having to pay higher taxes to counter a terrorist ‘threat’...
We do live with threats of terrorism. But to facilitate it unchecked, no.
I can’t just rock up to any and every chosen country worldwide and declare that I wish to live there, I wish they give me a place to live and a weekly cash benefit...
Why that expectation should be put on taxpayers here, why we should be in receipt of that burden is a mystery...0 -
What good is the ability of deporting a person, especially in the aftermath of them causing or contributing to damages, injury, loss of live... contributing to us having to pay higher taxes to counter a terrorist ‘threat’...
We do live with threats of terrorism. But to facilitate it unchecked, no.
I can’t just rock up to any and every chosen country worldwide and declare that I wish to live there, I wish they give me a place to live and a weekly cash benefit...
Why that expectation should be put on taxpayers here, why we should be in receipt of that burden is a mystery...
I asked about which EU regulation prevented deportation of members of a terrorist cell (I didn't say anything about in the aftermath of an attack) because you stated that now that the UK had left the EU, if they discovered a terrorist cell, they could expel them.....I just wanted to clarify what EU regulation was preventing them from doing this before they left?
What does any of that have to do with the EU? Immigration of citizens of non EU member states is not controlled by any EU regulation. The UK could already set whatever criteria they wished for migrants who did not have EU citizenship. Ireland could do so tomorrow. The UK could already set criteria which would stop any migrant from claiming benefits (even if that person was a citizen of an EU member state), Ireland could do so tomorrow. Taking in refugees is nothing to do with EU membership, it is part of the Geneva Conventions, so once more leaving the EU has done nothing for the UK on this, except prevent the UK from returning asylum seekers to other EU countries under the Dublin Regulations.
So I'll ask again, given that immigration from outside the EU is actually increasing in the UK since the Brexit vote, that it was always something the UK could control even as a member of the EU and given that countries outside the EU have already stated that visa quotas will make up part of any trade deal.....where exactly is the stated Brexit dividend for any of this?
Also, can you point out where I stated that terrorist threats should be allowed to go unchecked? In my first interaction with you, I already said that I agree we should be casting a close eye over anyone returning from the likes of Syria Syria we we should continue with counterintelligence efforts Europe-wide to stop attacks and infiltrate cells before they can strike. I think that is reasonable....preventing anyone from a Muslim background from entering our country on the suspicion that they're all potential terrorists....not so much.
Considering your complaint is also that you also do not want to pay any extra taxes to deal with this, what great methods of stopping terrorist threats do you suggest, which come at zero cost and don't have knock-on impact on the rest of our economy (as that indirect cost would have to be made up by the tax payer too).0 -
Swedish journalist Joakim Lamotte writes on Facebook that one of the victims contacted him and said Tamim Sultani shouted “Allahu Akbar” while stabbing one of his victims.
https://www.facebook.com/joakim.lamotte/posts/3937897672971461
Translated with GoogleFor information, it is the victim who contacted me because he wants to tell me about the incident.
It was on Wednesday that the Afghan citizen Tamim Sultani attacked seven people in Vetlanda. In the initial stage, the attack was investigated as a suspected terrorist crime, which was later written off. When the police received questions about the matter, they answered in sweeping terms and did not give any concrete explanations. But now I can reveal new circumstances surrounding the act in Vetlanda.
I just did an interview with one of the people who was stabbed in Vetlanda. In order not to reveal the man's identity, I will not go into details, but the man is very taken and starts crying several times during our conversation. He does not know how he will ever dare to walk the streets and squares again, while being grateful that he is alive. He also expresses dissatisfaction with our politicians who, according to him, are responsible for having created this insecure society.
During the conversation, the man asks me several times: “How do we make people understand? Why do politicians turn a blind eye to the problems? Do they have to go through something themselves before they take the situation seriously? ”
The man also tells in detail about how it happened when he was attacked and what he remembers most clearly is that Tamim Sultani shouted "Allahu akbar" before he stabbed him.0 -
I mis-stated Europe once and have repeatedly clarified that I was referring to Western Europe, hence my statement that
This is a thread about a specific terrorist attack, not a general thread about Islamphobia or all Islamic terrorist attacks. Posting about other terrorist attacks because they share his Muslim background is no more on topic than posting about other terrorist attacks because they share his terrorist background. Either discussing other terrorist attacks is on topic or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. Either way, as I stated I'll wait for a moderator to tell me if my posts are off topic rather than you. Feel free to report them should you believe them to be so.
The purpose of the information is quite clear; most adults have lived through periods of greater risk of being killed by a terrorist. If you currently fear being attacked by Islamic terrorists and didn't have this level of fear of terrorist attacks during periods when terrorist attacks were actually more common then your fear is of the Islamic part more than the terrorist part.
I for one would be more concerned about my overall likelihood of death than the ideology of the person who did it.
Youre contradicting yourself.
Thread refers to a specific Islamic attack. You've dragged all terrorist attacks in, but as the graph shows all European deaths have increased since your baseline years, contrary to your claim , so you moved the goalposts to confine it to Western Europe, where Islamic attacks which were once unknown, are now on the rise.
This is a fact.
Islamic attacks in Europe are on the rise.
And the "fear" is rational rather than a phobia.0 -
Advertisement
-
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Youre contradicting yourself.
Thread refers to a specific Islamic attack. You've dragged all terrorist attacks in, but as the graph shows all European deaths have increased since your baseline years, contrary to your claim , so you moved the goalposts to confine it to Western Europe, where Islamic attacks which were once unknown, are now on the rise.
This is a fact.
Islamic attacks in Europe are on the rise.
And the "fear" is rational rather than a phobia.
My STARTING point was Western Europe, so I certainly didn't shift the goal posts to that position. The thread refers to a specific terrorist attack. Discussing terrorism is just as relevant to the thread as his Islamic background, discussing other terrorist attacks is as relevant as discussing other Islamic attacks. I'm done going over this with you, so you can quit moaning to me about it, if you think my posts are off topic you can report them.
If you think it is rational to fear something that killed 162 people in the EU in 2016, 62 in 2017, 13 in 2018, 10 in 2019 and 13 in 2020 (giving us a 5 year average of 52 per annum), or a grand total of ONE person in Ireland in total .....then I have a very long list of things you should be absolutely terrified of. You'd want to be positively sh*tting yourself every time you see a cow in a field (slightly less likely to kill you than the EU average, certainly more likely here in Ireland) or every time you go to bed (more likely to kill you), let alone the obvious ones like cowering in terror when you hear thunder and lightning forecasted on the weather report.
Why do I suspect you're not roving around threads trying to prevent cows from living in Ireland though?0 -
-
Both Jane Ruffino and Philip O’Connor [both living in Sweden and two of the most uptight SJWs ever] are silent about this0
-
Daragh1980 wrote: »Both Jane Ruffino and Philip O’Connor [both living in Sweden and two of the most uptight SJWs ever] are silent about this
Jane's perpetual suffering at the hands of fascist Swedish microaggressions are far worse than actual stabbings, hush.0 -
clytemnestra wrote: »Jane's perpetual suffering at the hands of fascist Swedish microaggressions are far worse than actual stabbings, hush.
Ha true
https://twitter.com/janeruffino/status/13681506081931919360 -
Daragh1980 wrote: »Both Jane Ruffino and Philip O’Connor [both living in Sweden and two of the most uptight SJWs ever] are silent about this
Yeah challanges Philip about Sweden's migrant problems and he will block you.0 -
Because the thread is about a terrorist attack.....and as per the statistics I provided, you are less likely to be killed in a terrorist attack now than you were in the 70s and 80s. My suggestion is that perhaps fears of terrorist attacks are somewhat overblown given that we live in a period of (relatively) low terrorist attacks.
Surely the IRA heavily alter those stats, the way they still do (if you were to be a terrorist in e.g. 2018 you were most likely to be an Irishman)? What is more common now and alarming is the number of terrorist attacks across a range of different countries in the name of a certain ideology. That is unprecedented in more modern times. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Britain etc. have all fallen foul of these attacks. Only very recently in Denmark was such an attack foiled.0 -
It's not a question of if but when the first Islamist attack will happen in Ireland.
No-one thought it would happen in Sweden that have been so welcoming but it has, twice.
Although this guy shouted Allahu Ackbar I don't think he was affiliated with IS or any organisation, just a crazed lone wolfe attack that could have been avoided with a better government.0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »Surely the IRA heavily alter those stats, the way they still do (if you were to be a terrorist in e.g. 2018 you were most likely to be an Irishman)? What is more common now and alarming is the number of terrorist attacks across a range of different countries in the name of a certain ideology. That is unprecedented in more modern times. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, Britain etc. have all fallen foul of these attacks. Only very recently in Denmark was such an attack foiled.
A number of movements, including the IRA, ETA in the Basque Region, a number of right wing Neo-Nazi attacks etc increased the numbers at the time.
They were all attacks based on certain ideologies (terrorist attacks generally are), as are the current attacks. International connection outside of just neighbouring countries is certainly a difference though.
I will highlight that quite a lot of potential attacks are foiled, but once more that isn't a unique trait to now, IRA and ETA attacks were foiled as well.
My point remains that if you were to be impacted by a terrorist attack, the specific ideology of the person who committed the atrocity wouldn't be terribly relevant. Overall, particularly here in Ireland, we are currently much less likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack. People arguing that Islamphobia is a logical response to current events but who wouldn't have agreed that Hibernophobia was logical up until recent memory are not quite as well reasoned as they seem to think.0 -
A number of movements, including the IRA, ETA in the Basque Region, a number of right wing Neo-Nazi attacks etc increased the numbers at the time.
They were all attacks based on certain ideologies (terrorist attacks generally are), as are the current attacks. International connection outside of just neighbouring countries is certainly a difference though.
I will highlight that quite a lot of potential attacks are foiled, but once more that isn't a unique trait to now, IRA and ETA attacks were foiled as well.
My point remains that if you were to be impacted by a terrorist attack, the specific ideology of the person who committed the atrocity wouldn't be terribly relevant. Overall, particularly here in Ireland, we are currently much less likely to be the victim of a terrorist attack. People arguing that Islamphobia is a logical response to current events but who wouldn't have agreed that Hibernophobia was logical up until recent memory are not quite as well reasoned as they seem to think.
But the IRA still heavily skew the statistics do they not?
No it wouldn't. But what is relevant is the surge in those types of attacks, and the reasons those attacks exist so regularly (in relative terms) across a variety of nations when they hadn't before? Why do you think this is the case?
I'm not sure who is arguing that 'Islamaphobia' is the correct response but I'd suggest it's a tiny minority.0 -
Advertisement
-
Daragh1980 wrote: »Both Jane Ruffino and Philip O’Connor [both living in Sweden and two of the most uptight SJWs ever] are silent about this
o Connor is a dingbat of epic proportions , never met a SJW bandwagon he didnt wholeheartedly embrace
the same dipsh1t who never stops ranting about the " far right " threat is also the quickest to accuse anyone concerned with islamic terrorism of being a racist
biggest wanker on social media by a distance0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »But the IRA still heavily skew the statistics do they not?
No it wouldn't. But what is relevant is the surge in those types of attacks, and the reasons those attacks exist so regularly (in relative terms) across a variety of nations when they hadn't before? Why do you think this is the case?
I'm not sure who is arguing that 'Islamaphobia' is the correct response but I'd suggest it's a tiny minority.
Yes, much like Daesh heavily skew the statistics now.
As for root cause, I'd probably argue that (primarily US, supported by British more recently and Russian before this) destabilisation of the East led to the environment where much of this fomented (much like the actions of the British in NI led to the environment where the IRA could foment). To be very clear, I am not stating this removes responsibility from those who commit terrorist acts.
I agree that in general society people who think Islamaphobia is a rational response are in the minority but my post was made in the context of a poster who specifically claimed that fear was a rational response and so it shouldn't be considered a phobia.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »
Islamic attacks in Europe are on the rise.
And the "fear" is rational rather than a phobia.0 -
My STARTING point was Western Europe, so I certainly didn't shift the goal posts to that position. The thread refers to a specific terrorist attack. Discussing terrorism is just as relevant to the thread as his Islamic background, discussing other terrorist attacks is as relevant as discussing other Islamic attacks. I'm done going over this with you, so you can quit moaning to me about it, if you think my posts are off topic you can report them.
If you think it is rational to fear something that killed 162 people in the EU in 2016, 62 in 2017, 13 in 2018, 10 in 2019 and 13 in 2020 (giving us a 5 year average of 52 per annum), or a grand total of ONE person in Ireland in total .....then I have a very long list of things you should be absolutely terrified of. You'd want to be positively sh*tting yourself every time you see a cow in a field (slightly less likely to kill you than the EU average, certainly more likely here in Ireland) or every time you go to bed (more likely to kill you), let alone the obvious ones like cowering in terror when you hear thunder and lightning forecasted on the weather report.
Why do I suspect you're not roving around threads trying to prevent cows from living in Ireland though?
Do cows go around planning attacks, murder, chaos, based on religion, politics etc ? Do cows predetermine acts of violence? distrust and mayhem costing hundreds / thousands of lives and taxpayers millions into the bargain ? Do cows require millions in benefits?
If it’s happening in Sweden it’s going to happen here. We need to learn before it’s too late.0 -
Do cows go around planning attacks, murder, chaos, based on religion, politics etc ? Do cows predetermine acts of violence? distrust and mayhem costing hundreds / thousands of lives and taxpayers millions into the bargain ? Do cows require millions in benefits?
If it’s happening in Sweden it’s going to happen here. We need to learn before it’s too late.
I'd argue the average cow plans as many attacks and as much chaos as the average Muslim yes.....and their impact on the environment is much worse too0 -
Why do I suspect you're not roving around threads trying to prevent cows from living in Ireland though?I'd argue the average cow plans as many attacks and as much chaos as the average Muslim yes.....and their impact on the environment is much worse too
I've absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. You might be skirting around calling me an anti - Muslim, but sure go for it, you'd be wrong on that as well.Yes, much like Daesh heavily skew the statistics now.
As for root cause, I'd probably argue that (primarily US, supported by British more recently and Russian before this) destabilisation of the East led to the environment where much of this fomented (much like the actions of the British in NI led to the environment where the IRA could foment). To be very clear, I am not stating this removes responsibility from those who commit terrorist acts.
I agree that in general society people who think Islamaphobia is a rational response are in the minority but my post was made in the context of a poster who specifically claimed that fear was a rational response and so it shouldn't be considered a phobia.
Youre not using the term Islamaphobia correctly.
Having regard to the number of Islamic attacks in Western Europe, being fearful of one is a rational reaction to a real threat.
Its not a "phobia".
Otherwise, the (intermittant) increased military presence on the streets of European cities, to manage this threat is but a manifestation of the phobia, and irrational.
I'm sure the people of Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are completely irrational , and can consider themlves fortunate they weren't around in the 80s
Yea, but cows...0 -
As for root cause, I'd probably argue that (primarily US, supported by British more recently and Russian before this) destabilisation of the East led to the environment where much of this fomented (much like the actions of the British in NI led to the environment where the IRA could foment). To be very clear, I am not stating this removes responsibility from those who commit terrorist acts.
Nah, you're just falling back on the old chestnut that if brown people are doing something bad that it must somehow be the Wests fault
That John Pliger routine ran out of road long ago.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »I've absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. You might be skirting around calling me an anti - Muslim, but sure go for it, you'd be wrong on that as well.
Youre not using the term Islamaphobia correctly.
Having regard to the number of Islamic attacks in Western Europe, being fearful of one is a rational reaction to a real threat.
Its not a "phobia".
Otherwise, the (intermittant) increased military presence on the streets of European cities, to manage this threat is but a manifestation of the phobia, and irrational.
I'm sure the people of Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are completely irrational , and can consider themlves fortunate they weren't around in the 80s
Yea, but cows...
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" according to the Oxford English dictionary....pretty sure my usage is just fine.
The majority of people in Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are going about their lives and not spending every waking moment checking under their beds for suicide bombers. I'll leave that to you.Nah, you're just falling back on the old chestnut that if brown people are doing something bad that it must somehow be the Wests fault
That John Pliger routine ran out of road long ago.
So we look to the east....before the Soviet-Afghan war, there was no such thing as Al Qaeda......before the, 'War on Terrorism' Daesh had no foothold of note.....but of course the West landing in and bombing all round them had nothing to do with destabilising the place and allowing such sentiments to foment.
What do you propose changed between then and now to lead to the increase in attacks? A millennium and a half down the line a quarter of the world's population all met up, they had an AGM and decided this was the new tactic?0 -
"Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims" according to the Oxford English dictionary....pretty sure my usage is just fine.
The majority of people in Nice, Madrid, Paris and Manchester are going about their lives and not spending every waking moment checking under their beds for suicide bombers. I'll leave that to you.
So we look to the east....before the Soviet-Afghan war, there was no such thing as Al Qaeda......before the, 'War on Terrorism' Daesh had no foothold of note.....but of course the West landing in and bombing all round them had nothing to do with destabilising the place and allowing such sentiments to foment.
What do you propose changed between then and now to lead to the increase in attacks? A millennium and a half down the line a quarter of the world's population all met up, they had an AGM and decided this was the new tactic?
The average person in the cities and country’s you mentioned are paying a higher tax because they are funding more police, more intelligence, more immigration, more housing, more shelter, more health, more benefits, more everything as a result of more people turning up, some legitimately, some legally but some or many not meeting any criteria of entitlement to be there.
The more people coming to live here without means on wish to contribute , the higher the investment in public services, the more burden on taxpayers and the less services available to us taxpayers..
In 20 years the asylum bill to facilitate and accommodate asylum seekers is in the region of 1.5 billion... that’s in just 20 years...
Good luck as an Irish taxpayer getting funding for rehabilitate medical treatment...when I needed it I was told to take a running jump, after my application sitting in some fûcking tossbags inbox in the HSE for 8 months after I left hospital... I’ve paid for my rehab exclusively privately....
But there are billions to be spent on accommodating, feeding, caring for the health, wellbeing and success of people just arriving off a plane, we have no plan or ability to limit cases... literally if a third of the population of the Sudan wanted to rock up here next week, 14 million people because of famine, war or whatever, legally we can’t refuse...... our glorious politicians would probably push through legislation to compulsory purchase homes from Irish people to give to them..0 -
The average person in the cities and country’s you mentioned are paying a higher tax because they are funding more police, more intelligence, more immigration, more housing, more shelter, more health, more benefits, more everything as a result of more people turning up, some legitimately, some legally but some or many not meeting any criteria of entitlement to be there.
The more people coming to live here without means on wish to contribute , the higher the investment in public services, the more burden on taxpayers and the less services available to us taxpayers..
In 20 years the asylum bill to facilitate and accommodate asylum seekers is in the region of 1.5 billion... that’s in just 20 years...
Good luck as an Irish taxpayer getting funding for rehabilitate medical treatment...when I needed it I was told to take a running jump, after my application sitting in some fûcking tossbags inbox in the HSE for 8 months after I left hospital... I’ve paid for my rehab exclusively privately....
But there are billions to be spent on accommodating, feeding, caring for the health, wellbeing and success of people just arriving off a plane, we have no plan or ability to limit cases... literally if a third of the population of the Sudan wanted to rock up here next week, 14 million people because of famine, war or whatever, legally we can’t refuse...... our glorious politicians would probably push through legislation to compulsory purchase homes from Irish people to give to them..
Last year (the most expensive year we've had, lest I be accused of playing it down), direct provision costs amounted to €129 million. For context in the 2020 budget alone, €1.2 billion was put aside for dealing with Brexit and €1.5 billion transferred to the Government's Rainy Day fund.....when put in the context of a national government, €129 million really isn't very much.
The 2020 government expenditure was around €70 billion, less than a fifth of a percent of our national budget went on Direct Provision. Our Social Protection expenditure was around €20 billion, so just over half a percent of our Social Protection budget went on Direct Provision. Presenting that as big numbers in personal terms, and over a twenty year period to further inflate it is supposed to make a fifth of a percent seem like it is hugely impactful when it isn't....over twenty years it was less than we put into the 2020 rainy day fund.
Sorry to hear about your troubles receiving rehabilitative treatment, but you'd want to dig a bit deeper than the fifth of a percent spent on Direct Provision to explain it. I don't think the €129 million would've been particularly transformative if added to the Health expenditure of over €20billion.
Can you show me what tax increases were introduced in Spain, England or France to fund the great increases in expenditure you mention in your first paragraph?
Besides all that, I thought we were discussing the risk of terrorism, not just sidelining into a generic rant about immigrants and refugees regardless of whether they potentially have connections to Islamic terrorism or not?0 -
Advertisement
-
Last year (the most expensive year we've had, lest I be accused of playing it down), direct provision costs amounted to €129 million. For context in the 2020 budget alone, €1.2 billion was put aside for dealing with Brexit and €1.5 billion transferred to the Government's Rainy Day fund.....when put in the context of a national government, €129 million really isn't very much.
The 2020 government expenditure was around €70 billion, less than a fifth of a percent of our national budget went on Direct Provision. Our Social Protection expenditure was around €20 billion, so just over half a percent of our Social Protection budget went on Direct Provision. Presenting that as big numbers in personal terms, and over a twenty year period to further inflate it is supposed to make a fifth of a percent seem like it is hugely impactful when it isn't....over twenty years it was less than we put into the 2020 rainy day fund.
Sorry to hear about your troubles receiving rehabilitative treatment, but you'd want to dig a bit deeper than the fifth of a percent spent on Direct Provision to explain it. I don't think the €129 million would've been particularly transformative if added to the Health expenditure of over €20billion.
Can you show me what tax increases were introduced in Spain, England or France to fund the great increases in expenditure you mention in your first paragraph?
Besides all that, I thought we were discussing the risk of terrorism, not just sidelining into a generic rant about immigrants and refugees regardless of whether they potentially have connections to Islamic terrorism or not?
It’s an effect across the board... there isn’t too much thinking required to ‘get’ that... the more we spend keeping ourselves safe from threats..the less we have to spend on other much needed services...in OUR community...Garda traffic officers sent to other units ? More accidents as there is less deterrent.
Sweden will probably now they’ve been attacked need xxxx more police, upgraded intelligence.... who pays, and who looses out ?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement