Migration Megathread

MrFresh

RandomName2 wrote: »

Like with treton I am going to reprimand you for talking about crime when we are talking about terrorism

Ah come on.

Witnesses testified that during the attack, Mair had cried out "This is for Britain", "keep Britain independent", and "Put Britain first"

Can you define terrorism. What with you making up your own definition for that and another poster making up his own definition for the term "Europeans" it's a little hard to nail down what ye actually mean with your wide ranging statements.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I hadn't forgotten the single victim of this attack, but this was complicated by the fact that the victim in this case had suffered from a very serious medical incident unrelated to the attack. If I remember correctly he had already collapsed in the street prior to the attack. It is debatable if he would have died anyway even had an attack not occurred (there was a question mark over whether it was heart failure?) though the attack certainly wouldn't have helped.

Postmortem findings showed he died of multiple injuries. You are jumping through some major hoops to down play right wing extremism and terrorism.

MrFresh

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Seems you're keen to empahsis the 'europeaness' of these folks, the leader born and 'raised' in belgium as you mention, but not a lot else.

Hardly 'typical Europeans' that you might have been trying to imply, are they?

Indeed wholly un-integrated, and 'raised' in an enclosed community that breeds anti-european views (to put it mildly), to the point of attempting to directly extinguish everyday European life.

Maybe you're right, and this is just what to expect in the Europe of the 21st century, across generations.

So you aren't a European if you are raised in a closed community and don't believe in Europe. Doesn't that describe much of the hard right? What's the difference between your non-Europeans and nationalists?

RandomName2

MrFresh wrote: »

Ah come on.

Can you define terrorism. What with you making up your own definition for that

In the context of the conversation we are clearly talking about crime where religion, culture, or ideology is a driving motivation behind the attack, principally with the desire to generate wide-scale terror. Terrorism is designed to achieve political or military objectives through the intimidation generated by the threat of successive attacks if the aims of the terrorists are not met, though simply driving a wedge between different ethnic or religious groups to generate conflict is sometimes an end goal. Assassinations are rarely described as terrorist in nature, particularly when the other aforementioned factors are not present.

MrFresh wrote: »

Postmortem findings showed he died of multiple injuries. You are jumping through some major hoops to down play right wing extremism and terrorism.

You are jumping through some major hoops to use an outlier.

4068ac1elhodqr

MrFresh wrote: »

So you aren't a European if you are raised in a closed community and don't believe in Europe. Doesn't that describe much of the hard right? What's the difference between your non-Europeans and nationalists?

The difference is these were neither nationalists (of any european state), nor european-ists.

The point was you said they were 'europeans', and not a lot else. Implying and imposing an image of any typical european.

Technically they were european citizens (on paper only), possibly dual-nationality. If you really wanted to be more accurate (to prevent purposeful mis-direction) you would have said they were 1st/2nd generation migrants to europe, that failed to integrate, rejected, and hated any concept of europe (or any european nations) offered to them.

MrFresh

RandomName2 wrote: »

In the context of the conversation we are clearly talking about crime where religion, culture, or ideology is a driving motivation behind the attack, principally with the desire to generate wide-scale terror. I think you're the first person I've heard to classify Jo Cox's assassination as terrorism.

How about the judge?

The same day, Mair was sentenced to life imprisonment; the judge said he had no doubt Mair murdered Cox to advance a political, racial, and ideological cause—that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms.

It seems that meets your requirements does it not? And if I'm the only person you've heard refer to it as terrorism I suggest you widen your horizons.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are jumping through some major hoops to use an outlier.

Don't blame me because the facts don't fit your fictitious claims. Just to remind you of what you said.

It is undeniable that every civilian death related to terrorism in the EU in the last 10 years has been perpetrated by Muslim assailants.

MrFresh

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

The difference is these were neither nationalists (of any european state), nor european-ists.

The point was you said they were 'europeans', and not a lot else. Implying and imposing an image of any typical european.

Technically they were european citizens (on paper only), possibly dual-nationality. If you really wanted to be more accurate (to prevent purposeful mis-direction) you would have said they were 1st/2nd generation migrants to europe, that failed to integrate, rejected, and hated any concept of europe (or any european nations) offered to them.

I think you'll find I wasn't the one who used the phrase "Europeans" first so if your issue is with the phrase take it up with the fella who lied about them. And while you can keep redefining what the word means, it won't change their nationalities.

Irish Praetorian

To be fair, I'm not sure the point regarding terrorism is made that much weaker by virtue of the fact that the percentage of death due to Islamist extremism is merely 88.5% of the total deaths, rather than 100%.

4068ac1elhodqr

MrFresh wrote: »

I think you'll find I wasn't the one who used the phrase "Europeans" first so if your issue is with the phrase take it up with the fella who lied about them. And while you can keep redefining what the word means, it won't change their nationalities.

Fair enough it was 'weisses' that made the 'but they were europeans..' line.

Believe it's an attempt to misdirect, they're only european on paper, they rejected europe, and their european state that raised them, outright.

It's highly likely they didn't see themselves european, in any form.

If you were to ask them their nationalty it would only be of a european state, when it suited them, in/or on their way back from crossing the borders of Turkey after commiting atrocities.

RandomName2

MrFresh wrote: »

Don't blame me because the facts don't fit your fictitious claims. Just to remind you of what you said.

There have been 422 civilian deaths due to terrorism in the EU in the last decade. 421 of those were killed in Islamic terrorist attacks. The 422nd was the Finsbury Park victim, who may have died from an unrelated medical complaint had the attack not happened.

Do you really think that this is not giving balance to the dangers of right-wing terrorism?

Irish Praetorian

RandomName2 wrote: »

There have been 422 civilian deaths due to terrorism in the EU in the last decade. 421 of those were killed in Islamic terrorist attacks. The 422nd was the Finsbury Park victim, who may have died from an unrelated medical complaint had the attack not happened.

Do you really think that this is not giving balance to the dangers of right-wing terrorism?

I think you might be missing out the Norway attack in 2011 which had a death toll of 77.

RandomName2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

I think you might be missing out the Norway attack in 2011 which had a death toll of 77.

Norway isn't in the EU.

I've also left out non-civilian deaths, and deaths of perpetrators.

Irish Praetorian

RandomName2 wrote: »

Norway isn't in the EU.

I've also left out non-civilian deaths, and deaths of perpetrators.

Ah I see, pardon my interjection.

AllForIt

Peter Hitches currently having a spat on twitter with various ppl who don't agree that Cox's killer was in fact medically mentally ill.


https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1114852006861078528


https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1115560454938603520


Speaking of Hitches he believes the UK will be a truly Islamic state in 100 years if not sooner. He claims that this is happening as a result of a void left by the demise of Christianity there. Even says he admires Islam because of it's robustness and strength in it's convictions, if not for the religion itself. Hope he's wrong.

Klonker

All of these EU nationals are second generation immigrants. Because they are not first generation immigrants you think that means we shouldn't limit the number of immigrants we let into Europe from Muslim countries and that it's actually data to support this?

If we do this we'll more immigrants that in turn will lead to having more of these second generation muslims getting radicalized here. How can you not see that? The 'they were European citizens' is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, it actually beggars belief.

MrFresh

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Fair enough it was 'weisses' that made the 'but they were europeans..' line.

Believe it's an attempt to misdirect, they're only european on paper, they rejected europe, and their european state that raised them, outright.

It's highly likely they didn't see themselves european, in any form.

If you were to ask them their nationalty it would only be of a european state, when it suited them, in/or on their way back from crossing the borders of Turkey after commiting atrocities.

It was the poster he was responding to who used the phrase. He, like you, appears to be using his own definition of the word.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There have been 422 civilian deaths due to terrorism in the EU in the last decade. 421 of those were killed in Islamic terrorist attacks. The 422nd was the Finsbury Park victim, who may have died from an unrelated medical complaint had the attack not happened.


Do you really think that this is not giving balance to the dangers of right-wing terrorism?

Listen to you. You're trying to make him less of a victim by saying he may have died anyway. Does that not leave a bad taste in your mouth? And you're excluding the murderer of Jo Cox for reasons you can't explain, a man who, by your own definition, committed an act of terror. You're excluding Norway only because it damages your argument. You've limited it to attacks resulting in deaths because you know that otherwise the picture wouldn't look the same.



Islamic attacks have been more deadly and aimed at maximum casualties. This is most likely due to the organisation behind them, something which appears to be on a downward scale thankfully. But incidents like the Christchurch shooting, Mosque vehicular attacks and the arrest of the Munich based group as well as a massive upsurge in non-fatal attacks show that right wing terrorism appears to be trying to even the body count. Trying to reduce the amount of not so European Europeans you might say.

MrFresh

Klonker wrote: »

All of these EU nationals are second generation immigrants. Because they are not first generation immigrants you think that means we shouldn't limit the number of immigrants we let into Europe from Muslim countries and that it's actually data to support this?

Who are you talking to? Who made this argument? Data to support what?

Klonker wrote: »

If we do this we'll more immigrants that in turn will lead to having more of these second generation muslims getting radicalized here. How can you not see that? The 'they were European citizens' is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, it actually beggars belief.

Surely it's more important to tackle the sources of the radicalism rather than close the barn door after the horses have bolted?

Klonker

MrFresh wrote:

Who are you talking to? Who made this argument? Data to support what?

Ah I quoted someone, not sure why it deleted as I could see I quoted someone after I posted it.

MrFresh wrote:

Surely it's more important to tackle the sources of the radicalism rather than close the barn door after the horses have bolted?

Just because a few horses bolted doesn't mean we shouldn't bother closing back up the barn door to prevent more!

Can't we do both? Wouldn't it be easier tackle source of radicalism in Europe if their are less radicalism people in Europe? Resources could be better used instead of tracking suspects.

RandomName2

MrFresh wrote: »

It was the poster he was responding to who used the phrase. He, like you, appears to be using his own definition of the word.

Terrorism literally has the word terror in it.

MrFresh wrote: »

Listen to you. You're trying to make him less of a victim by saying he may have died anyway. Does that not leave a bad taste in your mouth?

No, I'm undermining your use of an outlier. If you're going to do an appeal to emotion it would be easy to start naming off the dozens of islamic terrorist attacks and ask if you are dismissing them. I don't think you are doing that though, but I do believe you are willfully ignoring the disproportionate nature of it.

MrFresh wrote: »

And you're excluding the murderer of Jo Cox for reasons you can't explain, a man who, by your own definition, committed an act of terror.

What cell was he a part of, what political objective did he have, how did the assassination further his ideological beliefs? I know all three of these things your argument to be weak on. Did he hope that assassinating Jo Cox would terrorize people into voting for Brexit?

More to the point, can the assassin in this case be seen as representing any greater trend? I don't really think so, not in a way that the Mosque attack clearly does.

MrFresh wrote: »

You're excluding Norway only because it damages your argument. You've limited it to attacks resulting in deaths because you know that otherwise the picture wouldn't look the same.

Well naturally, in much the same way that you are trying to shoehorn Jo Cox's murder in attempt to prove me wrong. It also follows that widening the geographical scope being discussed would also increase the number of Islamist attacks being considered (for instance the inclusion of those that occurred in Russia and Istanbul). However, widening the scope also introduces greater complexity, and most of the discussion in this thread relates to immigration into the EU. This is a reasonable parameter for discussion.

Do you honestly believe that there is no current issue in relation to integration in EU countries, or that the terrorist attacks witnessed this past decade are not tied directly to this lack of integration?

MrFresh wrote: »

Islamic attacks have been more deadly and aimed at maximum casualties. This is most likely due to the organisation behind them, something which appears to be on a downward scale thankfully.

That's got a lot of truth to it, but there were also dozen of attacks which resulted in only single deaths (involving machetes, etc.). There were also numerous attacks which only resulted in the attacker's death, which I obviously wasn't counting.

MrFresh wrote: »

But incidents like the Christchurch shooting, Mosque vehicular attacks and the arrest of the Munich based group as well as a massive upsurge in non-fatal attacks show that right wing terrorism appears to be trying to even the body count. Trying to reduce the amount of not so European Europeans you might say.

Yes, the rise of right wing violence is a genuine concern going forward.

AllForIt

Klonker wrote: »

All of these EU nationals are second generation immigrants. Because they are not first generation immigrants you think that means we shouldn't limit the number of immigrants we let into Europe from Muslim countries and that it's actually data to support this?

If we do this we'll more immigrants that in turn will lead to having more of these second generation muslims getting radicalized here. How can you not see that? The 'they were European citizens' is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard, it actually beggars belief.

.

I wouldn't rise to that arguement myself. It doesn't matter their nationality, it's where their ideological beliefs come from and that certainty isn't Europe. Funny how some ppl think they can get away with claiming that radical Islamic beliefs are just as likely to come from Europe than any Muslim country.. Except for the fact they moved here not a generation ago and isn't that what this thread is about : ) Okay I do get that point is lost on some ppl, especially the bigot warriors.

Clever trick though to let Islamists into Europe and then say Europe are as equally resposible for them as Muslim counties are. If you don't laugh you'd cry.

But don't worry. Lots of them are really lovely. Especially the devout Muslim on the BBC just this week who proudly and without criticism talked down the "No Outsiders" initiative as if gays were interested in raping his children. The BBC loved it. Equality of beliefs right there. I'd provide a link but I dont personally want to watch it again.Yes he did have a groomed greying scagily beard. Think that's a sign of wisdom or something. I personally wouldn't desire to live in his community as much as I wouldn't desire to live in Rwanda in 1994. Nice ppl personally but...., ...but I think I might be forced to live in his community. What a prospect.

Now if anyone has any good comback arguments especially if it shows you studied on a basic level philosphy and Latin, that would be more than welcome, because I do enjoy getting an education in how to mask yourself as being highly intelligent, genuine, and an all round lovely right-on guy. Bigot hunters are the best!

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

These 'Europeans' (below)?.


Some may have been born in Europe (2nd generation migrants), but they had zero affinity to Europe, or any interest in it's future.

Indeed they rejected Europe, living 'un-integrated'. Then extinguished the everyday freedoms that some actual Europeans enjoy, such as going to a music concert, football match, visiting a cafe, having a beer and so on.

Ok so, what's your definition of someone who is European? If it's not the obvious, being born in Europe, what is it?

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Immigration is illegal if it breaks the law (or in this case the rules of the EU). We can leave aside the fact that irregular entry into the EU is synonymous for illegal entry into the EU (and entry into the EU is immigration) because I was only talking about internal migration (which for the record might include leaving and reentering the EU).

I was talking about a particular rule where it is mandatory that asylum seekers, if entering irregularly, be processed in the first country in the EU that they enter. This rule is part of the Dublin regulations. People who are opposed to this are in favor of illegal immigration. I really can't make this any more simple.

This is bordering on ridiculous now. Who is arguing against the application of the Dublin regulation and what reasons are they giving? Whether they may or may not be in favour of illegal immigration is a completely different question.

It is easier to solve a problem before it becomes one. Stopping asylum seekers from leaving the first country is typically easier than the second (or third/forth) country deporting them to the first country for the first country to process them.

How do you propose we stop them? Fences and mass arrests? Again the regulation applies to the states, not the asylum seekers so practical application of the rule is far more difficult and complex than you like the paint it. It borders on naive to think the answer is that simple.

MrFresh

RandomName2 wrote: »

Terrorism literally has the word terror in it.

It does. Well done.

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, I'm undermining your use of an outlier. If you're going to do an appeal to emotion it would be easy to start naming off the dozens of islamic terrorist attacks and ask if you are dismissing them. I don't think you are doing that though, but I do believe you are willfully ignoring the disproportionate nature of it.

Two outliers, from a single country in the EU.

RandomName2 wrote: »

What cell was he a part of, what political objective did he have, how did the assassination further his ideological beliefs? I know all three of these things your argument to be weak on. Did he hope that assassinating Jo Cox would terrorize people into voting for Brexit?

More to the point, can the assassin in this case be seen as representing any greater trend? I don't really think so, not in a way that the Mosque attack clearly does.

He hoped to further the British nationalist cause by killing someone who was campaigning against it. And yes, it does represent a trend in the UK. There's been much coverage of the harassment and threats being visited upon MP's who are seen to endanger Brexit.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well naturally, in much the same way that you are trying to shoehorn Jo Cox's murder in attempt to prove me wrong. It also follows that widening the geographical scope being discussed would also increase the number of Islamist attacks being considered (for instance the inclusion of those that occurred in Russia and Istanbul). However, widening the scope also introduces greater complexity, and most of the discussion in this thread relates to immigration into the EU. This is a reasonable parameter for discussion.

Do you honestly believe that there is no current issue in relation to integration in EU countries, or that the terrorist attacks witnessed this past decade are not tied directly to this lack of integration?

No I don't believe that. Integration is an issue. It's what causes it and how it should be addressed that we seem to disagree on.

Midlife

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

These 'Europeans' (below)?.


Some may have been born in Europe (2nd generation migrants), but they had zero affinity to Europe, or any interest in it's future.

Indeed they rejected Europe, living 'un-integrated'. Then extinguished the everyday freedoms that some actual Europeans enjoy, such as going to a music concert, football match, visiting a cafe, having a beer and so on.

So what do you suggest out of curiosity?

Whether or not you like it, people are either European or not.

Some Europeans don't buy into that. Some Europeans have been radicalised by a cause and some committ horrific attacks.

That's the reality. You repeatedly posting updates that amount to 'muslims = dangerous' don't exactly say anything.

So what do you suggest?

James Brown

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

These 'Europeans' (below)?.


Some may have been born in Europe (2nd generation migrants), but they had zero affinity to Europe, or any interest in it's future.

Indeed they rejected Europe, living 'un-integrated'. Then extinguished the everyday freedoms that some actual Europeans enjoy, such as going to a music concert, football match, visiting a cafe, having a beer and so on.

Are you talking about the D.U.P.? Because you could be.
I never knew inclusion in a democratic society was on the condition you held a particular view.

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

Ok so, what's your definition of someone who is European? If it's not the obvious, being born in Europe, what is it?

As already mentioned, they are european on paper only. They themselves felt no affinity to Europe, nor any European Country.
You could say, they are/were all actually enemies of (all) european states, and even the notion of any other western democratic state for that matter.

Having successfully extinguished random and multiple european lifes, because the subjects were actually typical, random, even multicultural europeans that they detested.

Yet you are so keen to focus on their paper 'europeaness', because it somehow makes you feel better? ok...

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

As already mentioned, they are european on paper only. They themselves felt no affinity to Europe, nor any European Country.
You could say, they are/were all actually enemies of (all) european states, and even the notion of any other western democratic state for that matter.

Having successfully extinguished random and multiple european lifes, because the subjects were actually typical, random, even multicultural europeans that they detested.

Yet you are so keen to focus on their paper 'europeaness', because it somehow makes you feel better? ok...

It's not about how I feel actually. You're bringing subjective feelings into it, not me. You feel they aren't European despite the objective fact that they were born in Europe.

So I'll ask again, how do you define whether someone is European or not?

4068ac1elhodqr

Brian? wrote: »

It's not about how I feel actually.

Actually it is. And you obvious sympathetic feelings towards these perpetrators of terror, could be of a concern to some at this stage, as you re-attempt to empahsis how typical european these folks were.

Is it not a fair assement to call them 'european' by paper/birth only?

They failed to embrace any aspects of European values and daily european life to such an extent, they seeked to extinguish it from others.

You best answer would ultimately would have been via asking these individuals directly (but most have since been terminated).
- if they themselves defied themselves as european (as they return across the Turkish border) after fighting their war as foreign solders of some terror group in Syria where their allengences lie.

MrFresh

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Actually it is. And you obvious sympathetic feelings towards these perpetrators of terror, could be of a concern to some at this stage, as you re-attempt to empahsis how typical european these folks were.

Is it not a fair assement to call them 'european' by paper/birth only?

They failed to embrace any aspects of European values and daily european life to such an extent, they seeked to extinguish it from others.

You best answer would ultimately would have been via asking these individuals directly (but most have since been terminated).
- if they themselves defied themselves as european (as they return across the Turkish border) after fighting their war as foreign solders of some terror group in Syria where their allengences lie.

So your test for if a person is European is to ask them if they feel European? What if they lie?

James Brown

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Actually it is. And you obvious sympathetic feelings towards these perpetrators of terror, could be of a concern to some at this stage, as you re-attempt to empahsis how typical european these folks were.

Is it not a fair assement to call them 'european' by paper/birth only?

They failed to embrace any aspects of European values and daily european life to such an extent, they seeked to extinguish it from others.

You best answer would ultimately would have been via asking these individuals directly (but most have since been terminated).
- if they themselves defied themselves as european (as they return across the Turkish border) after fighting their war as foreign solders of some terror group in Syria where their allengences lie.

Who decides what being European is? I thought it was a blending of different cultures and nations. Even after Brexit the U.K. will still be a European entity. But would they be less European than a French person?
You seem to be confusing all Muslim immigrants with terrorists. That's factually inaccurate. Is Marie Le Penn European or Anders Breivik? Smacks of 'no true Scotsman' to me.

Brian?

Briggs Full Sunblock wrote: »

Actually it is. And you obvious sympathetic feelings towards these perpetrators of terror, could be of a concern to some at this stage, as you re-attempt to empahsis how typical european these folks were.

There's a fine heat of that strawman you're burning.

I am not sympathetic towards these "perpetrators of terror", I have no sympathy for their cause or their actions.

I never said they were "typical Europeans", because this phrase is meaningless. They are however European because they are citizens of European countries. That's a fairly straight forward proposition to me. I don't know why you deny it's simplicity.

They were horrible people who committed terrible acts, regardless of citizenship.

Is it not a fair assement to call them 'european' by paper/birth only?

No, because that doesn't mean anything.

They failed to embrace any aspects of European values and daily european life to such an extent, they seeked to extinguish it from others.

You best answer would ultimately would have been via asking these individuals directly (but most have since been terminated).
- if they themselves defied themselves as european (as they return across the Turkish border) after fighting their war as foreign solders of some terror group in Syria where their allengences lie.

How do you decide if someone is European or not? I ask again.