(April 3, 2016 at 3:47 pm)abaris Wrote: Barring the fact, you still miss the point by a lightyear, since we're not talking about immigration but asylum seekers.

OK, well would you rather have skilled workers come in through legal immigration that have to take tests to prove they can partially speak the language, and understand your form of government, or just have refugees come in from countries your nation is at war with, and have no skills or any common language. You will have to pay a lot more to house refugees, then skilled workers. The welfare system is going to be stressed along with all the conflict of the local population due to economic stress, cultural stress etc.

Why is no one talking about why other middle eastern countries are not accepting refugees? Why is it Europes job to take them all in? What's with Saudi Arabia denying entry? They obviously know what Europe doesn't.


Turkish Nationalists in Germany: "With Allah's help, we shall conquer You"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YqcIFIzOPA

There are international laws and conventions dealing with the matter. Is that above the paygrade of your braincells. The fact that certain countries ignore these conventions, doesn't make them any less valid.

(April 3, 2016 at 3:57 pm)abaris Wrote: There are international laws and conventions dealing with the matter. Is that above the paygrade of your braincells. The fact that certain countries ignore these conventions, doesn't make them any less valid.

So basically Europe is getting the shaft and your solution is to shrug your shoulders, deal with it, and add more lube to make the insertion easier and hope for the best? Grow some balls, take a stand, and speak up instead of bowing down for once.

(April 3, 2016 at 4:03 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: So basically Europe is getting the shaft and your solution is to shrug your shoulders, deal with it, and add more lube to make the insertion easier and hope for the best? Grow some balls, take a stand, and speak up instead of bowing down for once.

No, my basis is human decency and observing the laws and conventions coming with it. The very laws we put in place during this last century to make the world a more humane place. I know, that's an alien concept within your circles.

I feel as though I just lost some brain cells reading Drich's post.

(April 2, 2016 at 3:54 am)Heat Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 2:58 am)scoobysnack Wrote: Even if it only took 1% to set off a nuclear weapon to destroy you? I agree, we shouldn't just have a blanket ban, but shouldn't you have some caution, or do you just not care about your life and other around you?

I care about the other life around me thats WHY i dont want to ban innocent muslims from the country.

North Korea has Nuclear weapons and are ruled by a crazy unpredictable dictator. Does that mean we should go nuke the shit outta north korea? No, we set sanctions in place.

I understand that this is a bit of an unfair example but the point is that there are bad people in the world, and they do bad things. That doesnt mean or justify prosecuting anyone who could potentially be a bad person, as if they are a bad person, or will do a bad thing. Essentially what a majority of people on this thread want to do is implement a 'guilty until proven innocent' policy for Muslims in specific. I cannot accept this policy on both a legal level, and a moral level. So call me PC for sticking up for what I think is right, I couldnt care less, because sticking up for what is the right thing to do is never a worthless effort.

I hear ya, we can't group all people together for what a small minority do. However something needs to be done to find out people's desires of peace or violence. We also can just assume that they just want to live in peace, because there is a group that wants to get in and attack and disrupt. If it only takes a few people to carry out an attack, I would favor caution, instead of just letting people in. Also we are talking about this from a very low level of understanding, not a high level understanding of warfare, or even a globalization plan. Part of the plan to diminish traditional culture, erode national sovereignty, nationalism, bring in foreigners to aid in the disruption, which will make the citizens beg for more surveillance as a solution, and more rules over the country which is really what's needed to advance the plan of globalism. Nation states need to be broken, so a solution can be offered. The only way the people will take the bait is if their lives are in danger.

Those that just want to think this whole migrant crisis is something they need to accept out of the goodness of their heart, need to understand this is a grander plan.

An old plan, but not the official plan is the kalergi plan. Check that out, it's the kind of ideology that led to the EU to begin with.

(April 3, 2016 at 4:32 pm)scoobysnack Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 3:54 am)Heat Wrote: I care about the other life around me thats WHY i dont want to ban innocent muslims from the country.

North Korea has Nuclear weapons and are ruled by a crazy unpredictable dictator. Does that mean we should go nuke the shit outta north korea? No, we set sanctions in place.

I understand that this is a bit of an unfair example but the point is that there are bad people in the world, and they do bad things. That doesnt mean or justify prosecuting anyone who could potentially be a bad person, as if they are a bad person, or will do a bad thing. Essentially what a majority of people on this thread want to do is implement a 'guilty until proven innocent' policy for Muslims in specific. I cannot accept this policy on both a legal level, and a moral level. So call me PC for sticking up for what I think is right, I couldnt care less, because sticking up for what is the right thing to do is never a worthless effort.

I hear ya, we can't group all people together for what a small minority do. However something needs to be done to find out people's desires of peace or violence. We also can just assume that they just want to live in peace, because there is a group that wants to get in and attack and disrupt. If it only takes a few people to carry out an attack, I would favor caution, instead of just letting people in. Also we are talking about this from a very low level of understanding, not a high level understanding of warfare, or even a globalization plan. Part of the plan to diminish traditional culture, erode national sovereignty, nationalism, bring in foreigners to aid in the disruption, which will make the citizens beg for more surveillance as a solution, and more rules over the country which is really what's needed to advance the plan of globalism. Nation states need to be broken, so a solution can be offered. The only way the people will take the bait is if their lives are in danger.

Those that just want to think this whole migrant crisis is something they need to accept out of the goodness of their heart, need to understand this is a grander plan.

An old plan, but not the official plan is the kalergi plan. Check that out, it's the kind of ideology that led to the EU to begin with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should just let everyone in willy-nilly. I'm all for upping the security as much as possible, and doing extensive background checks. Anything that can deter an influx or entry of terrorists in to any country is a positive.

Yeah, scoob. You know so much about the situation in Germany that not even Alex could educate you. Turkish nationalists, my ass. As if these were the real problems of Germany right now. And yet another obscure source from the bowels of the internet to go with it. Filmed with a phone, no less.

Come on, man. I know you to be a conspiracy nut, but there's a limit to everything.

(March 28, 2016 at 3:07 am)robvalue Wrote: Interesting.

I agree ignor, blanket policies regarding Muslims will only make things worse. It's also impossible to properly enforce, since someone only need lie about being a Muslim to legally not be one temporarily.

We need to try and encourage proper integration from both sides. Strict adherence to divisive religious dogma is of course going to make this extremely difficult. I would hope that, in the West at least, the fundamentalism gets watered down with each new generation. Unfortunately, the solution really requires them to start cherry picking and ignoring their religion like most Christians do. It does seem they are generally less willing to do this, and the Quran is clearer and less contradictory than the bible.

I am very worried about persecution of women, within Muslims communities in the West. I don't know how much this goes on, and of course it doesn't apply to every Muslim. Far from it. But for those raised in strict families, I imagine escape routes for women would be very difficult, if they even have the confidence to try and haven't been mentally broken down to think they deserve what they get. I have no idea how much this actually goes on, hopefully much less than I would imagine. And again, maybe this will lessen as time goes on.

I’m not in Europe, but nothing separates us but a little old pond. Whatever hits there will eventually splash over here and vice versa. So…

What do you mean “start?” the Quran says any Muslim who does not participate in a declared jihad will be counted among the infidels. So what is a peaceful Muslim doing if not cherry picking?
I agree with you. The culture of the west will eventually water down their dogmatism. That’s the only thing keeping Christian fundamentalists from being just like the Muslims.

Their plan may be to be a microbe in the belly of the beast—but we've got Tums.

Deaths due to terrorism in Europe, 2015: 150.
http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-ki...-1970-2015

Deaths due to traffic accidents in Europe, 2015: 84,589
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...death_rate

Terrorism only works if we are terrified.
It's clearly working on some people.
Those people need to fucking grow a pair.