Politics & Stuff

[cosmicway 1,333]

3 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

Fucking Isis, America and Merkel. I doubt that in 2016, united countries couldnt stop Isis from all this bullshit, considering how much americans control people (snowden,...). Its well known that Isis would not exist without assistance of USA. It was arguably formed by help of Usa to disturb already problematic area in middle east, which caused mass migration to Europe, which allowed many terrorist move to EU without problem. Who can now blow and kill all the time in european cities. All this bullshit is set up. Paris, Berlin,...it was not an act of individual. USA only took advantage of idiots who would blow themselves in name of Islamic state. WAR, ARMS, all this shit brings by far the most money to USA, obviously they need to to find excuses and explanations why so much investment in military technology and oil. Sure without war in middle east, who the fuck would let Americans intervene in that area and continue with their military development. But they are smart fellas, so they aid terrorist with guns, who suddenly turn state in civil war. Perfect for USA to get involved, develop their industry of arms and make oil deals to make them richer and more powerful.

Oh and who the fuck was that one person that basicaly let millions of people arrive in EU? Merkel. Yeah. The one and only Obama's bitch. If you remember she is the one who wants to block Nord Stream 2 and why oh why, because if Russia creates further monopol over gas in EU, there will be less need to ask USA, But to start with, why the hell would USA supply europe with gas in the first place? Like, do they need to get involved in all the stuff thats non of their business? And yeah, Clinton vs Putin...another interesting topic. Thank fuck she didnt win elections.

Then there is the media. The propaganda. No one talks about what is realy going on, just its all ISIS fault, USA are the good guys,...

For every concequence, there is a cause. Consequences are seen all over europe, but the real causes remain hidden. 

Im very anti-racist and have absolutely nothing against any other race or religion, but IF this shit continues in EUROPE, I will first defend the europe and then migrants. They had war for ages down there and while many are normal people like us, the percentage of crazy suicide fuckers and fanatic believers is much higher than in europe. Its common sense that religions dont mix. Those people couldnt live in their own country and make peace. And they would do it here? Haha, only more violence and death will happen of inocent europeans.

There is a war down there. OK. Then fucking fight for your country for fuck sake. I know its not that simple, but for fuck sake, you cant fucking invade another continent like that. People are very naive if they think europe will remain safe. People forget that you need to look at situation after 10-20 years. All the migrants here will create generations and generations of generations that will overcome the europeans sooner or later at this rate. At one point islamists will be either equal or above native europeans. When they achieve that, haha then they can start demanding whatever they please and force it. Or start war through their ''fanatic believers''. Anglo-saxons didnt escape to france when vikings attacked them. Europeans didnt escape when germans invaded europe. They fought back. Help of USA was great aid, but the consequences are still seen today by USA involvement in EU politics. But wait, they have decades long war in middle east and people just got idea in one summer to leave their counties and move to fancy EU and live normaly or maybe even force their religion to us? Hell no. Thats a no go.

Close the borders, deport people back. I have had enough of the violent acts. If europe has to deport millions of people of islam, to save thousands of europeans, so be it.

It would not surprise me one bit if at one point europe entered war and obviously USA would come to the rescue in either way.

Sorry for long post, it just pissed me off to see people die again because of politics. Its not simple what I wrote, but its connected, the ISIS, USA, EU, migrations, terrorist attacks.

I know its 21st century and we live in advanced times, but whoever thought its ok to let islamists invade europe and ask for asylum...islamists will never live normaly here, and now neither will europeans. Sometime ago, when something like this happened (like in berlin) people would be shocked, outraged. Today, its just another day in europe.

 

 

 

Europeans are busy fighting one another and also reinstalling communist regimes.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

It is quite simple. By 'Muslim World' I just mean the collection of cultures, peoples, languages and philosophies that are inherently Muslim. I'd say nations like France, United Kingdom, United States of America belong to the 'Christian World' because that is the sphere of influence that Christianity has. You can't disagree that both religions have formed the basis of many nation's ideals. While there are many differences between Somalia and Pakistan, I'd wager that the shared belief in Islam creates a firmer connection than Pakistan and Iceland; just as Iceland would have a firmer connection with Spain than Somalia. That is all. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive

I just can't agree. Culturally I'm probably more in line with Chrisitanity but would I say I'm a Christian? Not at all, because I do not believe in Jesus or God but I can abide by and appreciate many of the teachings. I just can't accept someone is a Muslim when they don't believe in Mohammed or Allah. I'm not deciding who is and who is not; I just think to actually be, one must believe .  While I respect that people believe there is more to Islam than just Allah and Mohammed and I believe that they can live in that manner if the choose to; when I refer to a Muslim I do refer to the people that follow that religion not matter how closely or loosely just as long as they believe. If someone tells me they are Muslim, then they are Muslim but that doesn't mean I'm under any obligation to believe or agree with them; just like they are under no obligation to adhere to my criteria of what constitutes a Muslim. To be a Muslim doesn't one have to submit themselves to the will of Allah?

I feel there is a disconnect with many people including yourself. When people say 'Muslim', I do not believe they mean anyone that identifies as a 'Muslim' but to the people that follow an Orthodox lifestyle to the 'T'. As in the oppressive imagery we seen and the worst people and cultures that have begun under Islam. When someone says they dislike Islam, I honestly believe they are in fact referring to post-Iran revolution Islam. That is just what I take away from it.

I get what you mean, I even agree with you, but ultimately people have the right to freedom of religious belief and that includes identifying as Muslim even if you don't believe in Allah. That is of course an extreme and rare case, but my original point was about the diversity of belief in Islam even about major things like Hijab, praying, fasting, social structures, civil and human rights and reforming religion. 

I do not doubt that what you mean by Islam is the violent jihadi strand that's all over the news. I genuinely believe that that is what most Western people mean. But that is incredibly dangerous. On one hand you have the (for want of better word) direct damage that is done to people who don't know much about Islam and Muslims except what little they hear on the news who will then think that anyone who identifies as a Muslim falls into that category or even people with mental illnesses who might want to go out and stop those dangerous Muslim they keep hearing about.

But even more damaging is the indirect damage as a result of conflating the two. Because while you mean violent jihadi Muslims, when people talk about a Muslim ban they are mostly banning ordinary people going about their lives, when people talk about Muslim refugees they are mostly talking about normal families trying to find safety away from war, when the US is bombing 8 different Muslim-majority countries they are mostly bombing farmers and herders. 

My point is the consequences of the debates in which people you and many are using "Islam" to denote violent Jihadi Islam is the incitement of violence against ALL who identify as Muslim (and some who even don't). It's like calling the banks and media 'Jews'. Even if you are not referring to everyday Jewish people you are still incing hatred and violence against them.

It's not that difficult to add "extremist" or "violent" or "jihadi" or "takfiri" before the word Islam but it does have a huge effect the entire debate. 

[BlueLyon 9,359]

2 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

 

Europeans are busy fighting one another and also reinstalling communist regimes.

True we had problems in the past. But its not like we attack one another these days. IRA and ETA two terrorist organisations both made treaty with governments. Now if you point at Russians, there were people in Ukraine who consider themselves Russian. Putin invaded Ukraine because of that. Its fucked up, but understandable.

Now sure europeans and USA should never get involved in middle east wars, but then again they were invited by their governments of Iran,...AND then there were bombings of civilians. True. Europeans surely dropped some bombs. And islamists then decide to return us, to revenge? HAHa, if they werent fucked up with their believes, they would end the war and civilians would be alive still. But they continue their wars.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

4 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

I get what you mean, I even agree with you, but ultimately people have the right to freedom of religious belief and that includes identifying as Muslim even if you don't believe in Allah. That is of course an extreme and rare case, but my original point was about the diversity of belief in Islam even about major things like Hijab, praying, fasting, social structures, civil and human rights and reforming religion. 

I do not doubt that what you mean by Islam is the violent jihadi strand that's all over the news. I genuinely believe that that is what most Western people mean. But that is incredibly dangerous. On one hand you have the (for want of better word) direct damage that is done to people who don't know much about Islam and Muslims except what little they hear on the news who will then think that anyone who identifies as a Muslim falls into that category or even people with mental illnesses who might want to go out and stop those dangerous Muslim they keep hearing about.

But even more damaging is the indirect damage as a result of conflating the two. Because while you mean violent jihadi Muslims, when people talk about a Muslim ban they are mostly banning ordinary people going about their lives, when people talk about Muslim refugees they are mostly talking about normal families trying to find safety away from war, when the US is bombing 8 different Muslim-majority countries they are mostly bombing farmers and herders. 

My point is the consequences of the debates in which people you and many are using "Islam" to denote violent Jihadi Islam is the incitement of violence against ALL who identify as Muslim (and some who even don't). It's like calling the banks and media 'Jews'. Even if you are not referring to everyday Jewish people you are still incing hatred and violence against them.

It's not that difficult to add "extremist" or "violent" or "jihadi" or "takfiri" before the word Islam but it does have a huge effect the entire debate. 

I agree Islam and extremist are completely different things. Most of islamic peole are casual everyday civilians like u and me.

The problem is media and propaganda. They teach people that these terrorists are islamic and they kill and bomb because of religion. Thats the problem. There are extremists in middle east who use religion as tool to create more extremists. Islam is not reason, but tool.

Much like christianity was used to hang witches ages ago.

The worrying part tho is people have moved to such advanced state where slavery, witchhunt, etc is obviosuly forbidden and unethic. Yet middle east still has same problems it had 500 years ago. There is a war going on and on and on without end.

The question is; you have 10 million of islam people entering europe who might die if you stop them. But out of those 10 million, there is 1% of people who are real threat to millions of europeans. What to do?

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

2 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

I agree Islam and extremist are completely different things. Most of islamic peole are casual everyday civilians like u and me.

The problem is media and propaganda. They teach people that these terrorists are islamic and they kill and bomb because of religion. Thats the problem. There are extremists in middle east who use religion as tool to create more extremists. Islam is not reason, but tool.

Much like christianity was used to hang witches ages ago.

The worrying part tho is people have moved to such advanced state where slavery, witchhunt, etc is obviosuly forbidden and unethic. Yet middle east still has same problems it had 500 years ago. There is a war going on and on and on without end.

The question is; you have 10 million of islam people entering europe who might die if you stop them. But out of those 10 million, there is 1% of people who are real threat to millions of europeans. What to do?

You let them in and try to integrate them. Thats an easy answer for an easy question.

 

The tough part is answering how you integrate them.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

5 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

You let them in and try to integrate them. Thats an easy answer for an easy question.

 

The tough part is answering how you integrate them.

Well your answer is same thing as one would say that result of 5+5 is a number

For a group of people so big to integrate safely, we would need a complete control of borders and that would be only possible by making giant walls, controlled 24/7 surrounded by mine fields with entrances protected by several guards.That way, we might find about 1/3 of extremists. But what about those who look normal people and will bomb sth in 2 years? The countries itself would need to be under absolute surveillance including privacy of the people who arrived (because you cant point out extremist for who you have no background history and can pretend good guy for two years and then bomb paris), so we could strike them down before these individuals do anything stupid.

But yeah that is not possible.

So either you let them come in and this attacks will continue or you can close the borders period. There is no other way around. The damage has already been done tho. Those who intended to come to EU and bomb sth, are probably already in EU.

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

12 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

Well your answer is same thing as one would say that result of 5+5 is a number

For a group of people so big to integrate safely, we would need a complete control of borders and that would be only possible by making giant walls, controlled 24/7 surrounded by mine fields with entrances protected by several guards.That way, we might find about 1/3 of extremists. But what about those who look normal people and will bomb sth in 2 years? The countries itself would need to be under absolute surveillance including privacy of the people who arrived (because you cant point out extremist for who you have no background history and can pretend good guy for two years and then bomb paris), so we could strike them down before these individuals do anything stupid.

But yeah that is not possible.

So either you let them come in and this attacks will continue or you can close the borders period. There is no other way around. The damage has already been done tho. Those who intended to come to EU and bomb sth, are probably already in EU.

 

We can put men on the moon, there should be ways of educating a populace into society.

 

I would attempt a trident approach

1.Media-Show these people, in outlets that speak to them, what it means to be a part of their new location. Find ways that speak to them in media form.

2.Outreach-Have people on the ground to meet these people. Not just aid workers, but normal people so they can see they are just like them.

3.Acceptance-Show them the they are now a part of the puzzle. INTEGRATE them.

 

Its not too late until the person carries out the attack.

 

 

[Fernando 6,585]

11 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

We can put men on the moon, there should be ways of educating a populace into society.

 

I would attempt a trident approach

1.Media-Show these people, in outlets that speak to them, what it means to be a part of their new location. Find ways that speak to them in media form.

2.Outreach-Have people on the ground to meet these people. Not just aid workers, but normal people so they can see they are just like them.

3.Acceptance-Show them the they are now a part of the puzzle. INTEGRATE them.

 

Its not too late until the person carries out the attack.

 

 

This is what Germany has been trying to do. 

Some of this people don't want to integrate. 

 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

15 minutes ago, Fernando said:

This is what Germany has been trying to do. 

Some of this people don't want to integrate. 

 

Germany has done a piss poor job at it. They need to try harder, for their own native citizens sake at this point.

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

True we had problems in the past. But its not like we attack one another these days. IRA and ETA two terrorist organisations both made treaty with governments. Now if you point at Russians, there were people in Ukraine who consider themselves Russian. Putin invaded Ukraine because of that. Its fucked up, but understandable.

Now sure europeans and USA should never get involved in middle east wars, but then again they were invited by their governments of Iran,...AND then there were bombings of civilians. True. Europeans surely dropped some bombs. And islamists then decide to return us, to revenge? HAHa, if they werent fucked up with their believes, they would end the war and civilians would be alive still. But they continue their wars.

The European war has two fronts:
One is the Nigel front between UK and the rest.
The other war effort is to create neo-communist states to enslave the people.
In the middle of this the islamists have interfered.

 

[kmk108 1,186]

2 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is what Germany has been trying to do. 

Some of this people don't want to integrate. 

 

Maybe they have, but it wouldn't surprise me if the average populace isn't. Many of the Turkish immigrants are still being treated as second class citizens decades after they started immigrating to Germany.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

40 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

Maybe they have, but it wouldn't surprise me if the average populace isn't. Many of the Turkish immigrants are still being treated as second class citizens decades after they started immigrating to Germany.

If they cant integrate turks properly then they will never do it with the refugees.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

9 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

I agree Islam and extremist are completely different things. Most of islamic peole are casual everyday civilians like u and me.

The problem is media and propaganda. They teach people that these terrorists are islamic and they kill and bomb because of religion. Thats the problem. There are extremists in middle east who use religion as tool to create more extremists. Islam is not reason, but tool.

Much like christianity was used to hang witches ages ago.

The worrying part tho is people have moved to such advanced state where slavery, witchhunt, etc is obviosuly forbidden and unethic. Yet middle east still has same problems it had 500 years ago. There is a war going on and on and on without end.

The question is; you have 10 million of islam people entering europe who might die if you stop them. But out of those 10 million, there is 1% of people who are real threat to millions of europeans. What to do?

Yes, it's much more a moral crisis than a refugee crisis. The numbers entering Europe, even Germany are almost negligible. Lebanon has taken in refugees more than half of its population. I'm not suggesting that every country should do the same, but that's just to put the numbers going to Europe into perspective. 

For me it's a no-brainer: you let them in after looking at backgrounds as much as possible but I get that people have different opinions about this. For me it is easy because it goes down to the simple question: Do we want a human civilization based on compassion and equality to all? Because we take risks with things we want every single day. We take huge risks, many thousand times more than the threat of terrorist attacks, when we get in the car in the morning because we want fast transportation. We take risks because we value rights and privacy. Is it so outlandish to take risks because we value humanity?

Also, I genuinely don't believe that it is about risks of terrorist attacks for most politicians. Both on the right and the left. The main issue for them is that these people and their children if/when they get their voting rights will overwhelmingly vote for left wingers and progressives as almost every migrant community has ever done in history. 

[BoyBlue96 990]

8 hours ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

If they cant integrate turks properly then they will never do it with the refugees.

Maybe the immigrants also need to de a better job.

Not live in a street full with other immigrants but live among the Germans. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

2 hours ago, BoyBlue96 said:

Maybe the immigrants also need to de a better job.

Not live in a street full with other immigrants but live among the Germans. 

Thats the German government's job to make sure they don't.Diversify housing.