This video changed my opinion on the refugee 'crisis', probably for the better

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Now now, True Brit is entitled to look however he wants. I may disagree with him on issues like this, but find him a strangely compelling voice of reason on other things. Swings and roundabouts, mate.

(I really despise hippies though...bloody fakes, the lot of them).

a reply to: SprocketUK

He sure is. Entitled to whatever look he chooses. It was obviously tongue in cheek.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief Absolutely, but you do understand how many people here have had a sense-of-humour-dectomy

a reply to: SprocketUK

Ah well, more laughs for me.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And how many times do you need to told that the majpority of these refugees are treasure seekers who are not even fleeing from war.

Yeah. Maybe. And even if that's the case, the persuit of happiness was a basic human right the last time I checked.

But I like how you folks think you're very special (and white) snowflakes, who earned their right to seek treasures here mainly due to a big pile of doing nothing at all, combined with a lucky birth in the first world. Congrats to that btw!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Yeah. Maybe. And even if that's the case, the persuit of happiness was a basic human right the last time I checked.

So is the protection of one's home.

But, really, you are saying that everyone should be allowed to just walk into a country and settle there?

But I like how you folks think you're very special (and white) snowflakes, who earned their right to seek treasures here mainly due to a big pile of doing nothing at all, combined with a lucky birth in the first world. Congrats to that btw!

Hey, just on the pursuit of happiness. It's a basic human right. Right?

So who is being racist here?

Me pointing out that a lot of refugees are not fleeing from warzones, coming here for economic reasons, which is a simple fact, or you refering to me as some sort of white devil, for pointing out this fact?

I never voted for any party that has supported imperialistic wars. Do you want me to apologise for being born here?

originally posted by: TrueBrit

If the number of people coming in increases, then the percentage of evil doers might not change. The total number of evil doers will, but the percentage need not. Therefore, the evil doers remain in the minority, no matter what the total number of migrants might be.

Do you follow that logic?

So, just because a greater number of humans are arriving, does not mean that a greater number, a majority, are going to be evil doers, but it does mean that there might be more evil people around.

However, given that western foreign policy over the last forty years or more is directly connected to how the terror wave which is breaking now, came to pass, I would say complaining about consequences is somewhat weak. We have sown, and so must we reap. To complain about our fear of the consequences of our nations actions on the intelligence front, is unseemly and in poor taste, given the pain those actions, that we paid our governments to be complicit in, have caused.

We need to put on our big boy pants, so to speak, and stop acting indignant about the danger we have put ourselves in by continuing to support agendas which necessitate the proxy war ethic. Perhaps when that has been behind us for a few decades, we might be able to be legitimately in possession of righteous indignation. Until then, keeping our chins on display might be wise.

Sorry, TrueBrit, I usually agree with you on most topics and generally find your posts rather illuminating, but I have to disagree with you here.

Firstly, a key point you fail to mention is that while the percentage of evil doers relative to the immigrant population might not increase, the overall percentage of evil doers within the country's borders WILL increase.

Secondly. your argument against attempting to minimise a potential danger is weak and relies on moral reasoning — e.g. well our actions caused terror so we ought to risk our well-being by allowing terrorists to claim asylum in our country. It's not logical but dangerous thinking.

Thirdly, in the international world of politics, "righteousness" is an illusion. There is only power — those with the ability to protect and secure their borders and those without that capability.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

It is rather more the case that our actions are what has caused the Middle East to collapse, and therefore we should be prepared to take on certain risks in order to ensure the safety of those whose disenfranchisement and trauma has its origins in our nation.

Otherwise, what we are basically saying is:

"Yeah, we destroyed the whole region in which your nation happens to be, and yes, we removed the only figures capable of keeping our proxy battalions (elements of IS) in check, and now they own vast swathes of the Middle East and have become hard to dislodge. But the thing is that we do not care about you one iota, we do not have any respect for your human rights, we never did. We are everything the propaganda at home makes us out to be. Dangerously self interested, sociopathic on a national level, cold, honourless, and evil. We sustain ourselves with your suffering, and take no responsibility for our actions, because that is the way we like it."

That is not acceptable, in the least.

Furthermore, we have one of the most powerful, informed intelligence networks on the face of earth. If you are prepared to tell me that there is no way to filter out terrorists from the masses coming through, then I will tell you that you have not been paying attention to the right information. If terrorists make it through, it is because they have been allowed to come through, to make the presence of ANY foreign influence appear negative, when it should not be.

Ha ha haaa,

"Refugees Welcome!"

The amount of thick people who looked at the TV and claimed that ANY of those millions of scum were refugees astounded me then, and it astounds me now.

Try walking down the streets of Sudan and you'll see some people who are REALLY in need of help, REALLY desperate to leave. You'll never see one walking off the train holding a smartphone. You'll NEVER hear one complaining that the tents are too small in the refugee camp or the food isn't up to standard. They'd be happy just to get a handful of dirty water out a fricken puddle.

The millions of scum that those pathetic leaders and pathetic countrymen allowed to flood into their society were, and are, so obviously NOT refugees by any definition. It doesn't take a thick, gutless liberal to see that!

They made their bed, now let them lie in it!!

"Refugees Welcome!" Ha ha haaaa, you suckers. In less THAN ten years time the Europeans will be leaving their countries in droves. And they'll be seriously considering releasing Anders Brevik so he can run for Prime Minister!

"Refugees Welcome!"

a reply to: conz1992 can anyone say cia/fema crisis actor?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Oh, btw, it was Hitler who declared war on the US first.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

But, really, you are saying that everyone should be allowed to just walk into a country and settle there?

Nope. Well established fact since 1966.
en.wikipedia.org...

So who is being racist here?
Me pointing out that a lot of refugees are not fleeing from warzones, coming here for economic reasons, which is a simple fact, or you refering to me as some sort of white devil, for pointing out this fact?

And now you're offended? Hilarious.

Yeah. Let's apply basic human rights exclusively to the special snowflakes born here, I get your point. Divide and conquer strikes again!
However, everyone's right of asylum and our laws of asylum already don't work so well together. But 'economic refugees' usually don't stay here and get expelled rather quickly. You know what I see? A post full of tedious prejudices, congrats!

...
Manfred Schmidt: That's difficult to say. Whether we have similarly high numbers next year will depend on if we succeed in lowering the influx from Balkans countries like Serbia and Albania. People who come from this region are almost never recognized as refugees or as being eligible for asylum. But they also represent around 40 percent of all current asylum-seekers in Germany...

www.spiegel.de...

40% of all asylum seekers were not eligible for asylum, fact. You're welcome.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And now you're offended? Hilarious.

Not as offended as you are apparently. Any Jihad plans?

Yeah. Let's apply basic human rights exclusively to the special snowflakes born here, I get your point. Divide and conquer strikes again! However, everyone's right of asylum and our laws of asylum already don't work so well together. But 'economic refugees' usually don't stay here and get expelled rather quickly. You know what I see? A post full of tedious prejudices, congrats!

I see a post full of BS. What are you talking about? There is no right of asylum for anyone.

Nope. Well established fact since 1966. en.wikipedia.org...

Right. Please qoute the part that says that people can cross borders illegally and that any country is supposed to take in anyone that does.

40% of all asylum seekers were not eligible for asylum, fact. You're welcome.

That's not what your qoute says. It says that 40% of asylum seekers in Germany is from East European countries. This doesn't even include North Africans.


So what is your point, is this supposed to refute or correct something I said earlier? I only see you basically repeating what I said before you went of on your racist rant, namely that a large part of refugees is not fleeing from a war.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

our laws of asylum

You mean "our", as in you live here in the West?


In this case I actually hope they are paying attention here.

a reply to: anxiouswens

This is beyond good vs bad muslims. Problem is Islam can be easily used to radicalize especially uninformed people. I read this the other day it's someone who grew up Muslim. And he admits what he was taught growing up was not the quran. As he got older and looked at the life of mohamad he realized his parents didn't teach him the true Quran. Their version was of peace not war but as he studied the Koran he realized that mohamad was about war culminating in chapter 9 of the Quran.

We can't pretend Islam is blameless in radicalization its like claiming guns have nothing to do with bullets killing people. We need to realize the religion is used to radicakize individuals. As for the lame arguments that some hiw the west or Iraq causes this is silly and nothing but a straw man used to deflect. I'd argue if someone do to a job or life is willing to strap a bomb on and kill people they were already radical and we are just discussing a trigger. Don't do anything to upset them or boom the trigger is set off I call that BS. Here ill let the Muslim man discussing his former religion.

Americans awoke this morning to another terrorist attack — this time in the Brussels airport and subway. These attacks hit close to home. Many of us have flown through the Brussels airport, just as we have vacationed in Paris and visited San Bernardino. Once again images of the injured flood social media channels, reminding Americans of the ever-present reality that it could have been us. How is this happening? Why are people becoming radicalized, and so close to home? I am concerned how little we in the West understand why peaceful Muslims who live among us are drawn into radical Islam.

As a Muslim growing up in the United States, I was taught by my imams and the community around me that Islam is a religion of peace. My family modeled love for others and love for country, and not just by their words. My father served in the U.S. Navy throughout my childhood, starting as a seaman and retiring as a lieutenant commander. I believed wholeheartedly a slogan often repeated at my mosque after 9/11: “The terrorists who hijacked the planes also hijacked Islam.”
Yet as I began to investigate the Quran and the traditions of Muhammad’s life for myself in college, I found to my genuine surprise that the pages of Islamic history are filled with violence. How could I reconcile this with what I had always been taught about Islam?
In February 2015, the U.S. State Department Acting Spokesperson Marie Harf suggested that a “lack of opportunity for jobs” might be a significant factor in radicalization and terrorism. Alternatively, Suraj Lakhani, a scholar of radicalization in Wales, suggested that the process is driven by religious concerns and a drive to bolster one’s personal identity. He implies that young Muslims ought not be allowed to hear ISIL messages or interact with their recruiters.
Naturally, I agree that interacting with ISIL recruiters is a bad idea, but I believe what the recruiters themselves say sheds the most insight on the radicalization process. ISIL’s primary recruiting technique is not social or financial but theological. With frequent references to the highest sources of authority in Islam, the Quran and hadith (the collection of the sayings of the prophet Muhammad), ISIL enjoins upon Muslims their duty to fight against the enemies of Islam and to emigrate to the Islamic State once it has been established.

USA TODAY
Belgium attacks renew focus on Europe's Muslim enclaves: David Andelman

A recent two-page spread in the third issue of ISIL’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq, for instance, appealed to prospective recruits to leave their homeland and emigrate to the Islamic State by quoting a hadith from the canonical collections; it urged them to realize that they are living in times that reflect those of the earliest Muslims by referring to Muhammad’s life; it encouraged them to take a step of faith by quoting the Quran; and it praised them for their obedience by quoting yet another hadith. All four references to the Quran, hadith and the related Sunnah, were on the same two-page spread. Such is the frequency and intensity with which ISIL uses Islam's foundational texts to appeal to potential recruits.
As a young Muslim boy growing up in the 1980s and 1990s, it was impossible for me to look up a hadith unless I traveled to an Islamic library, something I would have never thought to do. For all intents and purposes, if I wanted to know about the traditions of Muhammad, I had to ask imams or elders in my tradition of Islam. That is no longer the case today. Just as radical Islamists may spread their message far and wide online, so, too, the Internet has made the traditions of Muhammad readily available for whoever wishes to look them up, even in English. When everyday Muslims investigate the Quran and hadith for themselves, bypassing centuries of tradition and their imams’ interpretations, they are confronted with the reality of violent jihad in the very foundations of their faith.
The Quran itself reveals a trajectory of jihad reflected in the almost 23 years of Muhammad’s prophetic career. As I demonstrate carefully in my book, Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward, starting with peaceful teachings and proclamations of monotheism, Muhammad's message featured violence with increasing intensity, culminating in surah 9, chronologically the last major chapter of the Quran, and its most expansively violent teaching. Throughout history, Muslim theologians have understood and taught this progression, that the message of the Quran culminates in its ninth chapter.

USA TODAY

Surah 9 is a command to disavow all treaties with polytheists and to subjugate Jews and Christians (9.29) so that Islam may “prevail over all religions” (9.33). It is fair to wonder whether any non-Muslims in the world are immune from being attacked, subdued or assimilated under this command. Muslims must fight, according to this final chapter of the Quran, and if they do not, then their faith is called into question and they are counted among the hypocrites (9.44-45). If they do fight, they are promised one of two rewards, either spoils of war or heaven through martyrdom. Allah has made a bargain with the mujahid who obeys: Kill or be killed in battle, and paradise awaits (9.111).
Muslim thought leaders agree that the Quran promotes such violence. Maajid Nawaz, co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation in the United Kingdom, has said, “We Muslims must admit there are challenging Koranic passages that require reinterpretation today. ... Only by rejecting vacuous literalism are we able to condemn, in principle, ISIS-style slavery, beheading, lashing, amputation & other medieval practices forever (all of which are in the Quran). … Reformers either win, and get religion-neutral politics, or lose, and get ISIL-style theocracy.” In other words, Muslims must depart from the literal readings
www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

That's not what your qoute says. It says that 40% of asylum seekers in Germany is from East European countries.

Read again? Safe countries of origin and thus no asylum for said 40%, put up or shut up!

No fricken clue whatsoever but strong opinions regarding my western ass? Well, well, well. We've got to do this again some day, that was funny. Looks kinda tedious from my side of the keyboard... again.

Greetings from a Free Frisian btw!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Read again? Safe countries of origin and thus no asylum for said 40%, put up or shut up!

What is the point you are trying to make here? How does this refute what I said?

And again you said this,

40% of all asylum seekers were not eligible for asylum, fact. You're welcome.

This is not what was said in your qoute.

Manfred Schmidt: That's difficult to say. Whether we have similarly high numbers next year will depend on if we succeed in lowering the influx from Balkans countries like Serbia and Albania. People who come from this region are almost never recognized as refugees or as being eligible for asylum. But they also represent around 40 percentof all current asylum-seekers in Germany.

As you can see, the 40 % clearly refers to the people from that East European region. Again this does not even include people that are not eligible for asylum from Africa. And these are numbers refering to Germany only.


I still don't see what your point is. How does any of this refute my original statement? I already asked you this but all you are able to come up with is vague drivel.

Greetings from a Free Frisian btw!

Do you go around calling the people who live there, "special white snowflakes"? Were you born there? I don't think so from the sounds of it. So you are not really Frisian.


Can you explain what your exact problem is because it is still a mystery to me why you went of on me with this rant responding to the statement I made, which you actually seem to support with the source you posted.

Oh, and what about this?

Please qoute the part that says that people can cross borders illegally and that any country is supposed to take in anyone that does.

Did you forget to respond to this or just ignoring the parts where your BS gets debunked?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

As you can see, the 40 % clearly refers to the people from that East European region

Again, thats the amount of economic refugees who're not eligible for asylum status. Countries of save origin, thus no asylum in the EU. In other words: there is no significant number of economic refugees regarding the other 60% asylum seekers from Africa, Syria and so on. And that's the point you're constantly messing around with, why didn't you add any substance by now?

Again this does not even include people that are not eligible for asylum from Africa.

If you've got further information about all those economic refugees from elsewhere: go ahead and post it.

As of now, you're simply confusing the real economic refugees from Eastern Europe with alleged economic refugees from Africa and so on. Why am I pointing this out over and over again? Simple, I want you to back up your argument with facts or we're done here.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I already posted my source before you posted your rant.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Basing his claim on the on the latest, as yet unpublished, data from Frontex — the European security agency which manages cooperation between national border guards securing the bloc’s external borders — Commissioner Timmermans said they are mainly economic migrants from countries such as Morocco and Tunisia, attempting to reach Europe via via Turkey.

You're citing a political statement, without any data whatsoever, as a valid source. Which it's not.

These numbers capture only those entering (and detected) by sea—some European countries, Germany in particular, have a separate problem of asylum-seekers travelling overland from Balkan countries like Kosovo, Serbia and Albania, the vast majority of whom are denied protection—and cover only “first-instance” decisions. Still, the headline numbers suggest that the vast majority of illegal migrants reaching Europe will be eligible for protection once they arrive. In Mr Orban's defence, it is true that the legal distinction between refugees and economic migrants often fails to capture the complex mixture of motives that drive migrants to make their epic journeys. War may be the catalyst for a journey that refugees will then seek to make as economically beneficial as possible. But in dealing with large numbers of migrants who, the data show, have fled countries stricken by war or the caprice of dictatorship, European politicians should strive for a more generous approach.

How many migrants to Europe are refugees?

Either the vast marority is eligible for asylum or it isn't. Judging from this second source, I would guess the Frontex data is obviously misleading and not worth a further debate.