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
Today's daily terror attack location is Belgium.
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
But this fact can't be avoided, "If they weren’t here, they couldn't act!"0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.0 -
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!0 -
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.What "Open borders movement"? Seriously, please explain this thoroughly, because I rarely to ever see anyone defending "open borders".
These "captains of industry" often sponsor and hide behind politicians who support multiculturalism and free inward migration.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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 1920s0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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 rate0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
-
And then there are the people who disagree with all of it, no matter what side.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.0 -
Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »What bombing is going on in Morocco?
None, but your question is not related to the point I made.0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement