London Bridge Incident - mod warning in OP

Hector Savage

Deleted User wrote: »

There is something really disturbing in the discussion of the London Bridge attack. When there’s an act of far-right terrorism, the liberal elite calls it by its name and demands tough measures to deal with it. This is fascism, they say, again and again, and we need censorship and social control to defeat it — censorship of alt-right hotheads and tabloid newspapers, and social control of any organisation that exhibits anti-immigration sentiments.

But after London Bridge, as in the wake of all Islamist terror attacks, they do the precise opposite. They never name the ideology behind the attack — it’s always just an “incident” or an “attack” or “terrorism”, never Islamist terrorism. And they are openly arguing against any kind of draconian response to London Bridge. In fact they insist that these terrorists need our help. They need ”deradicalisation support” and even “mental-health support”. In short, they need therapy.

Where the far-right terrorist is seen as a conscious and willing propagator of evil, the Islamist terrorist is treated as hapless being, almost as a victim, a passive creature who has been “radicalised” — ie, infected — by others. Where there is hatred and opposition to far-right terrorists, there is *sympathy* for Islamists, even though they have caused far greater destruction in Europe over the past decade than the far right has. Nothing better captures the moral exhaustion of the liberal elite than the fact they feel sorry for people who despise them and who want to destroy their society and its values.

Spot on, same point I was trying to make in my previous post, but you have articulated it way better here...

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

There is something really disturbing in the discussion of the London Bridge attack. When there’s an act of far-right terrorism, the liberal elite calls it by its name and demands tough measures to deal with it. This is fascism, they say, again and again, and we need censorship and social control to defeat it — censorship of alt-right hotheads and tabloid newspapers, and social control of any organisation that exhibits anti-immigration sentiments.

But after London Bridge, as in the wake of all Islamist terror attacks, they do the precise opposite. They never name the ideology behind the attack — it’s always just an “incident” or an “attack” or “terrorism”, never Islamist terrorism. And they are openly arguing against any kind of draconian response to London Bridge. In fact they insist that these terrorists need our help. They need ”deradicalisation support” and even “mental-health support”. In short, they need therapy.

Where the far-right terrorist is seen as a conscious and willing propagator of evil, the Islamist terrorist is treated as hapless being, almost as a victim, a passive creature who has been “radicalised” — ie, infected — by others. Where there is hatred and opposition to far-right terrorists, there is *sympathy* for Islamists, even though they have caused far greater destruction in Europe over the past decade than the far right has. Nothing better captures the moral exhaustion of the liberal elite than the fact they feel sorry for people who despise them and who want to destroy their society and its values.

So basically the "far right" are getting a raw deal. Well in the past decade anyway, strange we put that timeline on it.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Fake bomb and knife; this is a lone psycho. Some disturbed guy looking for his 15 minutes.

No doubt they will uncover a pattern of him using extremist social media and accompanied by some heavily conservative manifesto.

Unless your definition of conservative is "anything at all" I think you may have been wrong on this one.

Hector Savage

Blind Eagle wrote: »

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out a disingenuous posting style. The same loaded questions get peddled by far left progressive types when discussing Columbine style mass shootings in America, many of which are carried out by white people.

Asking why don't Muslims stop massacring people is stupid because the overwhelming majority don't, just as the overwhelming majority of white men don't engage in mass shootings in America, or rape women etc.

Anyone rational on this is not saying Muslims are to blame - it's the ideology of Islam ... and the unwillingness of the moderates to change it from within.

It's giving the extremists a stage to hide behind, there should be zero tolerance toward hate preachers, but Mosques throughout the UK regularly host them and are lauded as diverse and progressive at worst by the media or just ignored at best.

And back to the Muslim point, at the end of the day most victims of radical Islam on a global scale are Muslims, almost weekly there is suicide bombings in Afghanistan or pakistan killing a different sect of Muslims, it's not reported much here in the west though.

Boggles

Hector Savage wrote: »

And back to the Muslim point, at the end of the day most victims of radical Islam on a global scale are Muslims, almost weekly there is suicide bombings in Afghanistan or pakistan killing a different sect of Muslims, it's not reported much here in the west though.

Of course it is.

I read about it daily on "Western" media.

It's doesn't rattle the jimmies of certain individuals so you won't find many threads about them.

You also have genocide and mass internment of Muslims and torture carried out by non Muslims.

Again though, not rattling Jimmies.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

There is something really disturbing in the discussion of the London Bridge attack. When there’s an act of far-right terrorism, the liberal elite calls it by its name and demands tough measures to deal with it.......Where the far-right terrorist is seen as a conscious and willing propagator of evil, the Islamist terrorist is treated as hapless being, almost as a victim, a passive creature who has been “radicalised” — ie, infected — by others.

I've actually seen and noticed the exact opposite. The right wing commentators tend to label all muslims as jihadists who are hell bent on taking over western society and any right wing or 'home grown' terrorists are lone wolves with mental health issues that need help. Funny that.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I've actually seen and noticed the exact opposite. The right wing commentators tend to label all muslims as jihadists who are hell bent on taking over western society and any right wing or 'home grown' terrorists are lone wolves with mental health issues that need help. Funny that.

Yeah. He "stole" the argument and flipped it.

Pretty much what the likes of Tucker Carlson does.

Unfortunately the dullards lap it up.

Hector Savage

Deleted User wrote: »

I've actually seen and noticed the exact opposite. The right wing commentators tend to label all muslims as jihadists who are hell bent on taking over western society and any right wing or 'home grown' terrorists are lone wolves with mental health issues that need help. Funny that.

I agree, thats a problem, and a lot of us get lumped in with them when we critisise Islam

jackboy

Boggles wrote: »

You also have genocide and mass internment of Muslims and torture carried out by non Muslims.

That is being done by a country which is an economical powerhouse with a strong military. Therefore the west (including Ireland) have decided that what they are doing is acceptable. If the 'wrong' country tried that they would be sanctioned to oblivion.

Boggles

jackboy wrote: »

That is being done by a country which is an economical powerhouse with a strong military. Therefore the west (including Ireland) have decided that what they are doing is acceptable. If the 'wrong' country tried that they would be sanctioned to oblivion.

Burma are hardly a economic powerhouse.

Minimal sanctions targeting individuals.

Cordell

Hector Savage wrote: »

Anyone rational on this is not saying Muslims are to blame - it's the ideology of Islam ... and the unwillingness of the moderates to change it from within.

Their moderates are still pretty fundamentalist though. It's hard to reform the word of god which was conveyed verbatim by the last and only true prophet.

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's giving the extremists a stage to hide behind, there should be zero tolerance toward hate preachers, but Mosques throughout the UK regularly host them and are lauded as diverse and progressive at worst by the media or just ignored at best.

Yes, for some reason their ultra-conservative even far right ideology gets a free pass for some weird reason.

Hector Savage wrote: »

And back to the Muslim point, at the end of the day most victims of radical Islam on a global scale are Muslims, almost weekly there is suicide bombings in Afghanistan or pakistan killing a different sect of Muslims, it's not reported much here in the west though.

It's reported, but as it is, as their problem. Only when it spills over here it becomes a bigger issue for the west.

jackboy

Boggles wrote: »

Burma are hardly a economic powerhouse.

Minimal sanctions targeting individuals.

I assumed that you were talking about another country.

WrenBoy

Hector Savage wrote: »

.. at the end of the day most victims of radical Islam on a global scale are Muslims, almost weekly there is suicide bombings in Afghanistan or pakistan killing a different sect of Muslims, it's not reported much here in the west though.

If its a weekly occurrence, it stops becoming news at a certain point and just becomes the norm.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Benefits systems from those 4 countries are some of highest in Europe.

When 1 million migrants - 80% of whom were economic migrants - flooded into Europe, the vast majority went to Germany, Sweden, and France. It's not about "safety", otherwise they would have stayed in Turkey, Greece, Italy or Spain.

Instead, it's about economics - where the benefits systems pay the most.

Why can't it be both? Flee your home country for safety Once you're out, choose a country to settle in where you think you will have the best life. How do you see these two things as somehow not being able to exist together?

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Why can't it be both? Flee your home country for safety Once you're out, choose a country to settle in where you think you will have the best life. How do you see these two things as somehow not being able to exist together?

Because it contravenes the law, which says that you are free to escape from persecution and must reside in the first country of safety.

Second, genuine asylum seekers - and with them, their families - would and should be satisfied with any European country. It beggars belief that Italy is not the end of the journey, but merely the beginning.

Third, those who do migrate from the first safe country are exempt from registering in the UK on economic grounds. If they arrive in Italy, and then subsequently decide - for economic reasons - to move from Italy to the UK, they forego any right to stay in the UK and must be returned to Italy.

Of course, all of the above assumes that they are asylum seekers. The European Union has admitted that 80% of migrants are purely economic and would not classify as genuine asylum seekers under the Geneva Convention. Any illegal migrant should be swiftly deported to their home country. We need to send a message that you cannot cross the Mediterranean risk-free. Otherwise, many more - and many more deaths - will follow.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it contravenes the law, which says that you are free to escape from persecution and must reside in the first country of safety.

Which law? You sure you aren't confusing it with the Dublin Regulation which puts requirements on EU member states?

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, genuine asylum seekers - and with them, their families - would and should be satisfied with any European country. It beggars belief that Italy is not the end of the journey, but merely the beginning.

Again, why? Why would they not look for the best chance for their family instead of the first chance?

Deleted User wrote: »

Third, those who do migrate from the first safe country are exempt from registering in the UK on economic grounds. If they arrive in Italy, and then subsequently decide - for economic reasons - to move from Italy to the UK, they forego any right to stay in the UK and must be returned to Italy.

Again, I think you have a vague understanding of the Dublin Regulation and are mixing it up with stuff you read on Facebook. You use the word exempt when I think you mean restricted but it's still not correct. The Dublin Regulation is between member states, not between the EU and migrants.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, all of the above assumes that they are asylum seekers.

You literally just mentioned people registering on economic grounds, who wouldn't be asylum seekers..

Deleted User wrote: »

The European Union has admitted that 80% of migrants are purely economic and would not classify as genuine asylum seekers under the Geneva Convention. Any illegal migrant should be swiftly deported to their home country. We need to send a message that you cannot cross the Mediterranean risk-free. Otherwise, many more - and many more deaths - will follow.

An economic migrant isn't an illegal immigrant. You have a severe misunderstanding of many of the words relevant to this issue. I suggest you look for some factual sources on the claims you are making.


My question still stands though. If you have escaped from a dangerous situation why should you not try and do the best for you and your family instead of take the first option?

Cordell

If you have escaped from a dangerous situation why should you not try and do the best for you and your family instead of take the first option?

Because when you are in that situation you are safe hence no longer looking for asylum. Also, it's unfair to the rest of the non-EU migrants that are going through the legal channels.

Slowyourrole

Cordell wrote: »

Because when you are in that situation you are safe hence no longer looking for asylum. Also, it's unfair to the rest of the non-EU migrants that are going through the legal channels.

You still need asylum once you get out of the danger. The only other option is going back to the danger. And asylum seeking is legal.

Economic migrant - an illegal migrant who uses undergound means to gain access to a country against that country's consent, and who move primarily to advance their own economic status. They are not coming from warzones or are being actively persecuted.

Refugee - a migrant legitimately fleeing their own country for fear of their lives; they are persecuted.

80% of the tidal wave of 1 million migrants that flowed through Europe were economic migrants. They had no legal route into European countries and sought instead, to violate the immigration laws of European countries, and gain access through underhand methods. That is not acceptable. They are breaking the law.

Refugees are an entirely different question.

My condemnation goes toward the law-breakers, who instead of using the legitimate legal routes to enter a country, are trying to sneak into European countries against everyone's consent.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Economic migrant - an illegal migrant who uses undergound means to gain access to a country against that country's consent, and who move primarily to advance their own economic status. They are not coming from warzones or are being actively persecuted.

Refugee - a migrant legitimately fleeing their own country for fear of their lives; they are persecuted.

80% of the tidal wave of 1 million migrants that flowed through Europe were economic migrants. They had no legal route into European countries and sought instead, to violate the immigration laws of European countries, and gain access through underhand methods. That is not acceptable. They are breaking the law.

Refugees are an entirely different question.

My condemnation goes toward the law-breakers, who instead of using the legitimate legal routes to enter a country, are trying to sneak into European countries against everyone's consent.

Economic migrants aren't illegal. They are only illegal if they migrate illegally. Their reasons don't make them illegal. You're conflating those two terms for some reason.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Economic migrants aren't illegal. They are only illegal if they migrate illegally. Their reasons don't make them illegal. You're conflating those two terms for some reason.

Okay, you've made it abundantly clear that pedantry matters more than fact.

Let's go one level further.

• Legal economic migrant - enters a country through an ordered and established means and in alignment with the country's migration laws.
• Illegal economic migrant - enters a country against the above laws.

80% of those who migrated into Europe were illegal economic migrants - just as I would be an illegal economic migrant if I secretly made my way into the United States or Australia by contravening their migration laws.

Cordell

Slowyourrole wrote: »

You still need asylum once you get out of the danger. The only other option is going back to the danger. And asylum seeking is legal.

Yes, but when you are in a safe country and instead of seeking asylum there you migrate illegally to another safe country for economic reasons alone then you become an illegal economic migrant and you should be treated as such.

Be right back

I was near London bridge when it was all happening and it was reassuring how quickly the police reacted and how fast the area was locked down.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, you've made it abundantly clear that pedantry matters more than fact.

Let's go one level further.

• Legal economic migrant - enters a country through an ordered and established means and in alignment with the country's migration laws.
• Illegal economic migrant - enters a country against the above laws.

80% of those who migrated into Europe were illegal economic migrants - just as I would be an illegal economic migrant if I secretly made my way into the United States or Australia by contravening their migration laws.

I realize it may be a shock to you that some people think politics and major issues should be discussed factually instead of just spouting emotive nonsense but that is the case. You can call it pedantry if you wish, just makes you seem deliberately dishonest instead of ignorant. If you know the correct terms then why don't you use them instead of trying to conflate groups that aren't the same?


You're still wrong though. If you are referring to what I think you are, the evidence is that 7 in 10(as of 2017 numbers) asylum seekers were not entitled to asylum or humanitarian protection. Again, this does not make them illegal immigrants or mean they entered into the country secretly.

Be right back wrote: »

I was near London bridge when it was all happening and it was reassuring how quickly the police reacted and how fast the area was locked down.

The irony is that he was stopped by an immigrant low skill worker and convicted murderer on day release yet the Conservatives are trying to use the incident as a reason to slow EU immigration and impose harsher sentences on violent offenders.

WrenBoy

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The irony is that he was stopped by an immigrant low skill worker and convicted murderer on day release yet the Conservatives are trying to use the incident as a reason to slow EU immigration and impose harsher sentences on violent offenders.

He was one of the people who stepped in and fair play to him but lets be clear he murdered a person. He was welcomed into a different country in search of work or safety and murdered someone. He very much is a reason immigration should be slowed.

Slowyourrole

WrenBoy wrote: »

He was one of the people who stepped in and fair play to him but lets be clear he murdered a person. He was welcomed into a different country in search of work or safety and murdered someone. He very much is a reason immigration should be slowed.

The convicted murderer was not the immigrant. They are two different people.

WrenBoy

Slowyourrole wrote: »

The convicted murderer was not the immigrant. They are two different people.

I mis-read your post then, my bad.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

You're still wrong though. If you are referring to what I think you are, the evidence is that 7 in 10(as of 2017 numbers) asylum seekers were not entitled to asylum or humanitarian protection. Again, this does not make them illegal immigrants or mean they entered into the country secretly.

Most migrants were young males (approx. 60-70% of the migrant wave).

Around 17% were women.

This was the mass movement of young males, primarily from North Africa and the Middle East seeking to take advantage of the lax border policies surrounding the European Union.

Many of them have no right to be in Europe. They are as illegal as I would be if I entered the US illegally. There is simply no difference. Add to the mix that many of these migrants are now committing crimes in Germany, rape has spiked in Sweden on a galactic scale, and sexual offences against women and children are now rampant.

Again, we are far too lax about this.

It's about time Europe had some leadership on the issue, instead of encouraging more boats to cross the Mediterreanean - drowning more and more people.

It's the worst policy in Europe since the close of World War II.

20Wheel

Most of UK's immigration is from the Commonwealth anyway.

All these attackers are somehow connected to commonwealth immigration, be it direct migrants or as 2nd generation of commonwealth parents.

Maybe UK should be questioning why its still bringing in labour from the other end of the globe. Rather than just focusing on using the abundance of workers from the EU.

I mean min wage is min wage either way. And one group are way less likely to declare jihad on you, plus with the EU you get an equal exchange of migration opportunities, and 48% of UK exports goes there.

Slowyourrole

Deleted User wrote: »

Most migrants were young males (approx. 60-70% of the migrant wave).

Around 17% were women.

This was the mass movement of young males, primarily from North Africa and the Middle East seeking to take advantage of the lax border policies surrounding the European Union.

Many of them have no right to be in Europe. They are as illegal as I would be if I entered the US illegally. There is simply no difference. Add to the mix that many of these migrants are now committing crimes in Germany, rape has spiked in Sweden on a galactic scale, and sexual offences against women and children are now rampant.

Again, we are far too lax about this.

It's about time Europe had some leadership on the issue, instead of encouraging more boats to cross the Mediterreanean - drowning more and more people.

It's the worst policy in Europe since the close of World War II.

Again you are wrong. You are not illegal if you present yourself for an asylum application. The issue is not illegal immigrants. The issue is the delay and failure in removing people who have failed in their applications.