Nine dead so far, driver arrested.
That is as much as we know right now,
The arrest may well be precautionary, the lorry or driver may have failed somehow. But police at this stage are keeping an open mind that the collision with the shoppers might have been deliberate.
Yeah ok, but we had one of these attack in July, in France ! It is very actual. France and Germany are very close countries, it should have been obvious that this kind of attack was going to happen there, too.
godardc wrote: Yeah ok, but we had one of these attack in July, in France ! It is very actual. France and Germany are very close countries, it should have been obvious that this kind of attack was going to happen there, too.
Why? Literally because they share a border? Then where is the Spanish truck attack, the Belgian truck attack, the Luxembourgian truck attack, the Italian truck attack etc.?
It's a shame. Been following this at work today, we sell lots of tours & Danube river cruises that do the xmas markets, luckily for us none of them hit Berlin so we didn't have any passengers there. At least they got the guy before he could take the easy way out.
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
Germany has a very heavy presence in Afghanistan, and last year they authorized sending 1200 soldiers and recon jets to fight ISIS.
godardc wrote: Yeah ok, but we had one of these attack in July, in France ! It is very actual.
France and Germany are very close countries, it should have been obvious that this kind of attack was going to happen there, too.
Why? Literally because they share a border? Then where is the Spanish truck attack, the Belgian truck attack, the Luxembourgian truck attack, the Italian truck attack etc.?
Thats kind of my point. Other than making the Turmpain argument that the only point is the country let in persons of a certain which permitted this to occur, whats the reason?
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
Germany has a very heavy presence in Afghanistan, and last year they authorized sending 1200 soldiers and recon jets to fight ISIS.
But have they? They've officially notified NATO they don't have the capacity to meet NATO terms, much less project power. Again this is a question, not a criticism.
godardc wrote: Yeah ok, but we had one of these attack in July, in France ! It is very actual.
France and Germany are very close countries, it should have been obvious that this kind of attack was going to happen there, too.
Why? Literally because they share a border? Then where is the Spanish truck attack, the Belgian truck attack, the Luxembourgian truck attack, the Italian truck attack etc.?
Thats kind of my point. Other than making the Turmpain argument that the only point is the country let in persons of a certain which permitted this to occur, whats the reason?
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
I think the idea is to make people angry at the muslim people, attacking them, and then making these muslims yours, by defending them.
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
Germany has a very heavy presence in Afghanistan, and last year they authorized sending 1200 soldiers and recon jets to fight ISIS.
But have they? They've officially notified NATO they don't have the capacity to meet NATO terms, much less project power. Again this is a question, not a criticism.
Yes, German troops are in theater. They have those troops in Iraq, 6 recon aircraft, a frigate, and more partaking in operations in the area.
godardc wrote: Aren't there any fencing ? Concrete barriers ? In France we have had this since the last truck attack. Why not Germany ?
However much of Germany you want to see fenced off, I am sure you will end up missing a bit.
Thats a a heavy truck... anything short of a heavy barrier weighing several tons aint stopping it.
you need somthing big to stop a lorry.
Just the cost alone involved in truck-proofing every city will be very prohibitive and does nothing to stop any of these events just outside placed barriers. As badly as we might want it, nothing can ever be terror proofed to a 100%.
godardc wrote: Aren't there any fencing ? Concrete barriers ? In France we have had this since the last truck attack. Why not Germany ?
However much of Germany you want to see fenced off, I am sure you will end up missing a bit.
Thats a a heavy truck...
anything short of a heavy barrier weighing several tons aint stopping it.
you need somthing big to stop a lorry.
Just the cost alone involved in truck-proofing every city will be very prohibitive and does nothing to stop any of these events just outside placed barriers. As badly as we might want it, nothing can ever be terror proofed to a 100%.
Actually installing these precautions would be a victory for terrorism, and they would just switch attack method anyway. Those heavy concentre barriers will contain blast waves making a grenade in a crowd deadlier. You defeat terrorists with alert security services, and counter-propaganda, not walls.
godardc wrote: Yeah ok, but we had one of these attack in July, in France ! It is very actual.
France and Germany are very close countries, it should have been obvious that this kind of attack was going to happen there, too.
Why? Literally because they share a border? Then where is the Spanish truck attack, the Belgian truck attack, the Luxembourgian truck attack, the Italian truck attack etc.?
Eventually there will be acts like this all over the world...I smelled something like that for quite some time...preventing my family to participate in big events...better safe than sorry...
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
I think the idea is to make people angry at the muslim people, attacking them, and then making these muslims yours, by defending them.
Actually seems kinda sensible when you put it that way.
Horrific, of course. But at least it makes sense as an actual plan.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
Frazzled wrote: Because Germany doesn't have these type of attacks and is not involved in the Middle East? (not being hostile-I just imagine thats the reason).
I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
I think the idea is to make people angry at the muslim people, attacking them, and then making these muslims yours, by defending them.
Actually seems kinda sensible when you put it that way.
Horrific, of course. But at least it makes sense as an actual plan.
Its a standard modus operandi for terror networks, Terror leaders need to radicalise their own demographic, and they can do that by making them all the enemies of the state. The more widespread the state casts its net to find terror infiltrators in the community the more they alienate that community.
Reversing that is very difficult, but can be done.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
The nasty thing is the shopping centre which terrorists will target need large scale supply by heavy lorries.
You need to actively stop the driver not passively stop the lorry.
There are guards who control the entrances of the shops.
This kind of event is a big target. You don't even need to be controled or to go in and shoot: you just have to drive a truck, and noone can stop you. It is way easier.
Ok, maybe a terrorist could try to shoot all these poor people, but I think there would be less dead.
Still, it's horrible. Families, children... During Christmas !
Orlanth wrote: Actually installing these precautions would be a victory for terrorism, and they would just switch attack method anyway. Those heavy concentre barriers will contain blast waves making a grenade in a crowd deadlier. You defeat terrorists with alert security services, and counter-propaganda, not walls.
Having precautions is always a good idea, I don't think it will necessarily be a victory for terrorism. These kinds of barriers can double to create pedestrian areas and lessen traffic and exhaust in cities. Nevertheless I think doing it because of this specific instance might be going too far in the other direction. I agree with your second part.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
The nasty thing is the shopping centre which terrorists will target need large scale supply by heavy lorries. You need to actively stop the driver not passively stop the lorry.
True, but if this kind of attack wil become a trend than barriers to stop a truck leading to a heavily trafficked pedestrian area might be a good idea in the first place.
I'm not going to get into the topic of this thread too deep, because some here (if not all of OT's regulars) know my opinions regarding the issues surrounding Islam in general, fundamentalist Islam in particular, and the way the West is approaching the problem. I'm just going to say that my thoughts and prayers will go to the victims and their families. I wish them well, and would encourage them to muster the resolve to get through this trying time.
godardc wrote: There are guards who control the entrances of the shops.
This kind of event is a big target. You don't even need to be controled or to go in and shoot: you just have to drive a truck, and noone can stop you. It is way easier.
Ok, maybe a terrorist could try to shoot all these poor people, but I think there would be less dead.
Still, it's horrible. Families, children... During Christmas !
You dont want armed guards at shopping centres.
Besides the next plot will be to infiltrate the armed security personnel of an shopping centre then go postal.
How will you stop that, stop all Moslems from applying?
I have a question for the rest of the Europeans out here.
Our public news station used to take over control of one of our public channel with a live / looping broadcast of the incident when something serious happened nearby. This changed today. Today the news station did not take over one of the public channels and no improvised emergency broadcast was made. Today is apparently the fay that incidents like these have become business as usual for the news station and the incident was just an other news item.
Orlanth wrote: Actually installing these precautions would be a victory for terrorism, and they would just switch attack method anyway. Those heavy concentre barriers will contain blast waves making a grenade in a crowd deadlier. You defeat terrorists with alert security services, and counter-propaganda, not walls.
Having precautions is always a good idea, I don't think it will necessarily be a victory for terrorism. These kinds of barriers can double to create pedestrian areas and lessen traffic and exhaust in cities. Nevertheless I think doing it because of this specific instance might be going too far in the other direction. I agree with your second part.
If you deliberately restrict heavy supply traffic into urban centres you abolish urban centres. The logistics of supply for a metropolis is enormous. How many heavy duty lorries are needed to feed Berlin and keep it supplied with everything from milk to lavatory paper to office supplies etc. The situation is less bad than it looks, the scum have to find a dupe ready to do his suicide mision, they then have to get him a lorry (the easy part) and crash the lorry. If this was as easy as it sounds they would be doing this all the time, after all they want to. Europe's security services are not asleep.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
The nasty thing is the shopping centre which terrorists will target need large scale supply by heavy lorries.
You need to actively stop the driver not passively stop the lorry.
True, but if this kind of attack will become a trend than barriers to stop a truck leading to a heavily trafficked pedestrian area might be a good idea in the first place.
Sadly the barriers cannot exist, if the cities are to be supplied. Also any barrier stopping a lorry will also stop a bus. Will you sacrifice urban services to combat the problem, you will need to.
The trick is not to get too upset when you find people like GCHQ or the German equivalent is reading everyones Facebook page and emails. The UK is not short of radical Islamists but they arent attacking here, and some even made comment that the UK is too hard a target. France is the main target because French security services are too complacent. The UK will be hit, but its high risk, and terrorists gravitate towards soft targets.
Germany is vulnerable because it has recently had a massive immigrant influx with a large number of Daesh terrorists over as Syrian refugees. Because of the sheer volume there are too many to vet at once. This reality is hard to stomach by the progressive consensus, but is a flat fact. Germans have decent efficient wary police an security services. Their wake up was Munich 1972, and they have been very professional since, but Merkel let too many crazies in at once, I guess they are stretched thin watching too many new faces over too much of Germany to keep a track on everyone.
oldzoggy wrote: I have a question for the rest of the Europeans out here.
Our public news station used to take over control of one of our public channel with a live / looping broadcast of the incident when something serious happened nearby. This changed today. Today the news station did not take over one of the public channels and no improvised emergency broadcast was made. Today is apparently the fay that incidents like these have become business as usual for the news station and the incident was just an other news item.
Did this also happen in your countries ?
This is not necessarily the case, there was an extra broadcast at 11 on our (the Dutch) state channel. It might have to do with the relatively 'light' body count (as tragic as it is) from this attack or the time of day, but I certainly don't think they treat it like business as usual.
Orlanth wrote: Actually installing these precautions would be a victory for terrorism, and they would just switch attack method anyway. Those heavy concentre barriers will contain blast waves making a grenade in a crowd deadlier. You defeat terrorists with alert security services, and counter-propaganda, not walls.
Having precautions is always a good idea, I don't think it will necessarily be a victory for terrorism. These kinds of barriers can double to create pedestrian areas and lessen traffic and exhaust in cities. Nevertheless I think doing it because of this specific instance might be going too far in the other direction. I agree with your second part.
If you deliberately restrict heavy supply traffic into urban centres you abolish urban centres. The logistics of supply for a metropolis is enormous. How many heavy duty lorries are needed to feed Berlin and keep it supplied with everything from milk to lavatory paper to office supplies etc. The situation is less bad than it looks, the scum have to find a dupe ready to do his suicide mision, they then have to get him a lorry (the easy part) and crash the lorry. If this was as easy as it sounds they would be doing this all the time, after all they want to. Europe's security services are not asleep.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
The nasty thing is the shopping centre which terrorists will target need large scale supply by heavy lorries.
You need to actively stop the driver not passively stop the lorry.
True, but if this kind of attack will become a trend than barriers to stop a truck leading to a heavily trafficked pedestrian area might be a good idea in the first place.
Sadly the barriers cannot exist, if the cities are to be supplied. Also any barrier stopping a lorry will also stop a bus. Will you sacrifice urban services to combat the problem, you will need to.
The trick is not to get too upset when you find people like GCHQ or the German equivalent is reading everyones Facebook page and emails. The UK is not short of radical Islamists but they arent attacking here, and some even made comment that the UK is too hard a target. France is the main target because French security services are too complacent. The UK will be hit, but its high risk, and terrorists gravitate towards soft targets.
Germany is vulnerable because it has recently had a massive immigrant influx with a large number of Daesh terrorists over as Syrian refugees. Because of the sheer volume there are too many to vet at once. This reality is hard to stomach by the progressive consensus, but is a flat fact. Germans have decent efficient wary police an security services. Their wake up was Munich 1972, and they have been very professional since, but Merkel let too many crazies in at once, I guess they are stretched thin watching too many new faces over too much of Germany to keep a track on everyone.
Just to quickly finish on the barrier note, the Netherlands have such a system in the cities, where trucks supply the area at night and are not allowed in the area during the day. Public transport and residents with a car have a special card they can scan to lower a barrier to get in. I don't necessarily think Germany is any more at risk than other European countries and we don't know yet if the person was radicalized inside or outside of Germany. Although it is curious there were two people in the truck.
Two people make sense, a lone attacker is more likely to bottle it.
Yes it is common for cities to be supplied at night, this has little if anything to do with terrorism though and everything to do with logistics and congestion. After all buses and coaches run in urban centres by day, and you can do exactly the same damage with a stolen coach as you can with a lorry.
Some highly senstive areas have retractable bollards and that has a lot to do with terrorism. But that covers key areas like government buildings. You also might need to retract the bollards to let fire engines or ambulances in at short notice, so the bollards are normally left down and raised if there is an alert, not the other way around. Though near something like a parliamentary building bollards might stay up and a policeman checks traffic through and lowers bollards as needed.
Orlanth wrote: Two people make sense, a lone attacker is more likely to bottle it.
Yes it is common for cities to be supplied at night, this has little if anything to do with terrorism though and everything to do with logistics and congestion. After all buses and coaches run in urban centres by day, and you can do exactly the same damage with a stolen coach as you can with a lorry.
Some highly senstive areas have retractable bollards and that has a lot to do with terrorism. But that covers key areas like government buildings. You also might need to retract the bollards to let fire engines or ambulances in at short notice, so the bollards are normally left down and raised if there is an alert, not the other way around. Though near something like a parliamentary building bollards might stay up and a policeman checks traffic through and lowers bollards as needed.
With curious I meant more as in that it might be locals instead of immigrants, as they would have either come together to Germany (certainly possible) or have gotten to known each other relatively recently. I might be totally wrong of course, but it seems more likely because of the duo that they might be nationals, going by past events.
I realize the supply part has nothing to do with terrorism, even here it is an older pre-2001 development. However stealing a bus in broad daylight already inside the barriers is somewhat more difficult than stealing a truck at night from a gas station rest stop. I don't know for the UK of course, but here the retractable barriers usually stay up at all times unless someone has to pass, but some cities choose not to have them raised here too (meaning the pre 2001 barriers), although that seems to defeat the purpose of installing them but I'm not a politician
Orlanth wrote: Actually installing these precautions would be a victory for terrorism, and they would just switch attack method anyway. Those heavy concentre barriers will contain blast waves making a grenade in a crowd deadlier. You defeat terrorists with alert security services, and counter-propaganda, not walls.
Having precautions is always a good idea, I don't think it will necessarily be a victory for terrorism. These kinds of barriers can double to create pedestrian areas and lessen traffic and exhaust in cities. Nevertheless I think doing it because of this specific instance might be going too far in the other direction. I agree with your second part.
If you deliberately restrict heavy supply traffic into urban centres you abolish urban centres. The logistics of supply for a metropolis is enormous. How many heavy duty lorries are needed to feed Berlin and keep it supplied with everything from milk to lavatory paper to office supplies etc. The situation is less bad than it looks, the scum have to find a dupe ready to do his suicide mision, they then have to get him a lorry (the easy part) and crash the lorry. If this was as easy as it sounds they would be doing this all the time, after all they want to. Europe's security services are not asleep.
godardc wrote: Not truck proofing all the cities, but the events, like this one.
This only moves the issue, what if they do it on any other weekday plowing through a busy shopping street outside of events. As long as you have road acces to groups of people this seemingly new truck method will always have some effect.
The nasty thing is the shopping centre which terrorists will target need large scale supply by heavy lorries.
You need to actively stop the driver not passively stop the lorry.
True, but if this kind of attack will become a trend than barriers to stop a truck leading to a heavily trafficked pedestrian area might be a good idea in the first place.
Sadly the barriers cannot exist, if the cities are to be supplied. Also any barrier stopping a lorry will also stop a bus. Will you sacrifice urban services to combat the problem, you will need to.
The trick is not to get too upset when you find people like GCHQ or the German equivalent is reading everyones Facebook page and emails. The UK is not short of radical Islamists but they arent attacking here, and some even made comment that the UK is too hard a target. France is the main target because French security services are too complacent. The UK will be hit, but its high risk, and terrorists gravitate towards soft targets.
Germany is vulnerable because it has recently had a massive immigrant influx with a large number of Daesh terrorists over as Syrian refugees. Because of the sheer volume there are too many to vet at once. This reality is hard to stomach by the progressive consensus, but is a flat fact. Germans have decent efficient wary police an security services. Their wake up was Munich 1972, and they have been very professional since, but Merkel let too many crazies in at once, I guess they are stretched thin watching too many new faces over too much of Germany to keep a track on everyone.
...
My post
Yeah. Germanny is watching a what a million new faces.
They just cannot do it.
British is is by no means not got crazies, but our security services are highly deadicated, funded and trained to protect us.
Sometimes we need people willing to do shafowy things for the greater good.
Die Welt reports now (through a police spokesperson) that the passenger in the truck was Polish and further unconfirmed information the driver is Pakistani. Does not seem to be connected to Syrian refugees so far, so unless new information is brought up regarding a connection to Syria that angle seems closed off.
Pakistani or Afghan. This is most likely a terror attack. The driver was trying to run away and got caught by the police immediately. He asumeably killed the other man. The lorry was stolen/went missing this afternoon (4 pm according to the owning company). It looks very much like a planned attack. This is different to the happenings in Munich last summer which was not an attack against infidels/the western world.
Neither Police, BMI (Interior Ministry) nor Media here in Germany are saying anything about a Daesh attack nor that the Daesh declared it was an attack. And unless the BMI or the Police state anything else it is 'just' a tragic moment for the People in Berlin.
edit: ..and i now and can understand that people long for the lynch mob mentality, but until it's official - and i mean 'official' official via the Interior Ministry / Police etc. - our thoughts should go out to the victims and their families rather than the first
Facebook-esk news story we can find..
EverlastingNewb wrote: Neither Police, BMI (Interior Ministry) nor Media here in Germany are saying anything about a Daesh attack nor that the Daesh declared it was an attack. And unless the BMI or the Police state anything else it is 'just' a tragic moment for the People in Berlin.
But we have so many conclusions we can jump to, and really isn't that the important part?
EverlastingNewb wrote: Neither Police, BMI (Interior Ministry) nor Media here in Germany are saying anything about a Daesh attack nor that the Daesh declared it was an attack. And unless the BMI or the Police state anything else it is 'just' a tragic moment for the People in Berlin.
But we have so many conclusions we can jump to, and really isn't that the important part?
We found the confidence to make that jump and fight PC to tackle the real issues in this thread
With curious I meant more as in that it might be locals instead of immigrants, as they would have either come together to Germany (certainly possible) or have gotten to known each other relatively recently. I might be totally wrong of course, but it seems more likely because of the duo that they might be nationals, going by past events.
Relevant only as a side issue for those who want to track down the terror net. It makes sense to utilise a home grown terrorist, as they would be harder to detect. This still places the recent mass influx of Moslem immigrants, with a proportion being fanatics as a diluting factor for security services. The attackers themselves do not need to be Syrian refugees for the need to investigate said refugees to be a crippling distraction to the system.
There is nothing new in this either the IRA realised that their main terrorists were so heavily monitored that that used fresh recruits from the Irish republic on a use-once basis to conduct attacks on the Uk mainland. It would stand to reason that any ISIS sympathiser who migrated to Germany as a refugee, and there will be some would be priority for monitoring, so it makes sense to use someone else, a home grown radical, a recent convert to Islam, or a refugee who didn't appear radicalised.
With curious I meant more as in that it might be locals instead of immigrants, as they would have either come together to Germany (certainly possible) or have gotten to known each other relatively recently. I might be totally wrong of course, but it seems more likely because of the duo that they might be nationals, going by past events.
Relevant only as a side issue for those who want to track down the terror net. It makes sense to utilise a home grown terrorist, as they would be harder to detect. This still places the recent mass influx of Moslem immigrants, with a proportion being fanatics as a diluting factor for security services. The attackers themselves do not need to be Syrian refugees for the need to investigate said refugees to be a crippling distraction to the system.
There is nothing new in this either the IRA realised that their main terrorists were so heavily monitored that that used fresh recruits from the Irish republic on a use-once basis to conduct attacks on the Uk mainland. It would stand to reason that any ISIS sympathiser who migrated to Germany as a refugee, and there will be some would be priority for monitoring, so it makes sense to use someone else, a home grown radical, a recent convert to Islam, or a refugee who didn't appear radicalised.
Still, I don't think we should overestimate the effect of migration on national security agencies, without having any clear idea of what effect it has. Certainly the US and France have shown that even with a significantly lower or insignificant amount of Syrian refugees they still had attacks, in some cases by people already known to the relevant agencies. I don't think refugees had much to do with a Pakistani asylum seeker (who would have been the crippling distraction you mention) and a Pole that currently seem to be implicated. The police seems to think the truck was already stolen in Poland, so either the refugee crossed the border to steal a truck and kidnapping the driver, which seems an unlikely way of going about this, or the Pole and Pakistani worked together.
Still, I don't think we should overestimate the effect of migration on national security agencies, without having any clear idea of what effect it has.
Obviously we wont know about any blind spots in our national security services; or read about them on Dakka.
We can only go with the logical. If you have mass immigration from an Islamic country over a short space or time, and this has already had social problems because of the rapes etc, it stands to reason that there is more policing to do. The press has mentioned before that it is known that ISIS has infiltrate refugees headed to Europe, so I take that at face value too. I dint know the figures for recent migration from Syria, know the UK took only children and chose them from refugee camps in Syria, and I think that putting a lid on radicalisation had a lot to do with that.
Germany took on large numbers of adult refugees. Hungary had so many it closed the borders and caused a problem with regards to EU law.
I think it is perfectly logical to speculate that the German security services and police have thier hands full, and a quiet terrorist can more easily slip through the system.
Now as to the new news, a Pakistani and a Pole. The 'Pole' could well be a white recent Islamic convert, white Polish lorry drivers don't raise suspicion, so its a good use for that radical from the point of view of his handlers. 'Pole' could just as easily mean someone from a middle-eastern ancestry with a Polish passport. We dont know right now.
Poland is not really known for Islamic terror, but its an open democracy so converting to Islam could easily happen there, and the Polish security services might not watch those who do.
We do know that converts to Islam are more easily radicalised than those born within that culture, so it all looks plausible.
Edit: We dont know if there were two in the lorry, I havent seen any sourcing on that. However the Polish driver is missing and hasnt been seen, and it was his truck. He may have been abducted by a terrorist.
A Berlin Police spokesman confirmed they had a suspect in custody.
“We’ve had a description of the driver, who was on the run at first. Because of this description, one suspect could be arrested,” he said.
“We are now investigating whether the arrested person is actually the driver of the truck. The suspect was arrested nearby, a few hundred metres away from the scene of the attack.”
The Polish owner of the lorry also confirmed his driver was missing. “We haven’t heard from him since this afternoon. We don’t know what happened to him. He’s my cousin, I’ve known him since I was a kid. I can vouch for him,” transport company owner Ariel Zurawski told AFP.
Certainly the US and France have shown that even with a significantly lower or insignificant amount of Syrian refugees they still had attacks, in some cases by people already known to the relevant agencies.
The French have the Algerian connection that can never be ignored. Most of their Islamic terror problems come from the Algerian community. IIRC France has the highest Moslem population in Europe, and has a lot of radicalisation. It also borders the Med. All in all France is an easier target.
I don't think refugees had much to do with a Pakistani asylum seeker (who would have been the crippling distraction you mention) and a Pole that currently seem to be implicated. The police seems to think the truck was already stolen in Poland, so either the refugee crossed the border to steal a truck and kidnapping the driver, which seems an unlikely way of going about this, or the Pole and Pakistani worked together.
Don't make the mistake of looking at this in isolation. Security investigations and big and often utilise the resources of multiple jurisdictions. The recent mass immigration will haav been a factor as to why these two attackers were not detected. Intelligence budgets are not limitless, trained intelligence personnel are likely overstretched. You cant watch everything, you cant be everywhere.
Still, I don't think we should overestimate the effect of migration on national security agencies, without having any clear idea of what effect it has.
Obviously we wont know about any blind spots in our national security services; or read about them on Dakka.
We can only go with the logical. If you have mass immigration from an Islamic country over a short space or time, and this has already had social problems because of the rapes etc, it stands to reason that there is more policing to do. The press has mentioned before that it is known that ISIS has infiltrate refugees headed to Europe, so I take that at face value too. I dint know the figures for recent migration from Syria, know the UK took only children and chose them from refugee camps in Syria, and I think that putting a lid on radicalisation had a lot to do with that.
Germany took on large numbers of adult refugees. Hungary had so many it closed the borders and caused a problem with regards to EU law.
I think it is perfectly logical to speculate that the German security services and police have thier hands full, and a quiet terrorist can more easily slip through the system.
Now as to the new news, a Pakistani and a Pole. The 'Pole' could well be a white recent Islamic convert, white Polish lorry drivers don't raise suspicion, so its a good use for that radical from the point of view of his handlers. 'Pole' could just as easily mean someone from a middle-eastern ancestry with a Polish passport. We dont know right now. Poland is not really known for Islamic terror, but its an open democracy so converting to Islam could easily happen there, and the Polish security services might not watch those who do.
We do know that converts to Islam are more easily radicalised than those born within that culture, so it all looks plausible.
Certainly the US and France have shown that even with a significantly lower or insignificant amount of Syrian refugees they still had attacks, in some cases by people already known to the relevant agencies.
The French have the Algerian connection that can never be ignored. Most of their Islamic terror problems come from the Algerian community. IIRC France has the highest Moslem population in Europe, and has a lot of radicalisation. It also borders the Med. All in all France is an easier target.
Yet the Paris attacks were masterminded by two Belgian nationals of Moroccan descent. While France has the highest Muslim population overall it isn't significantly higher than other European countries. The bigger threat is from nationals going to fight abroad and preying upon refugees that get ignored by the system. This is certainly more of a domestic than refugee problem. Even if refugees play a role, the US demonstrates that refugees aren't always the problem. Lets not forget Germany used to have a domestic terror problem a few times bigger than the current terror problem. In perspective the million or so refugees have not proven more dangerous than ethnic Germans in that regard.
I don't think refugees had much to do with a Pakistani asylum seeker (who would have been the crippling distraction you mention) and a Pole that currently seem to be implicated. The police seems to think the truck was already stolen in Poland, so either the refugee crossed the border to steal a truck and kidnapping the driver, which seems an unlikely way of going about this, or the Pole and Pakistani worked together.
Don't make the mistake of looking at this in isolation. Security investigations and big and often utilise the resources of multiple jurisdictions. The recent mass immigration will haav been a factor as to why these two attackers were not detected. Intelligence budgets are not limitless, trained intelligence personnel are likely overstretched. You cant watch everything, you cant be everywhere.
That is correct but the issue is that contribution is unknown, so it is hard to speculate what kind of influence refugees have on the system. They already had problems monitoring returnees fighting abroad before the refugee explosion.
Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.
I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.
Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.
ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.
So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.
Orlanth wrote: Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.
I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.
Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.
ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.
So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.
But just look at the attacks in France, both Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris attacks had nationals serving as foreign fighters in either Yemen or Syria and known to the authorities. The fact that they were able to commit these acts show a lack of oversight into their activities. The same goes for the Nice attack, the individuals inspiring the attacker were known to the authorities, but yet again managed to plan an attack. A further issue is that you need hard evidence that these people fought there to convict them, something intelligence agencies are frequently unwilling to give up to put these individuals on trial. There is a reasonable assumption that there are thousands of Europeans who have or are fighting for IS, yet how many trials against them have you heard of? If the reports are true than the Pakistani had requested political asylum, while in the case of the Paris attackers the few non nationals had used fake passports to get in with the help of the nationals. The real terrorists wont apply for anything but will most likely go underground, the real risk is from those radicalized nationals that have the network to get there accomplices in amongst the refugees or can turn desperate refugees. The refugees aren't the problem, it is the inadequate ability to process tens of thousands of people on tiny islands and part of that is because Europe is unwilling to spend more money to do so. The terrorists are part of another problem of illegal activities and if a country of 80 million people can't monitor 1.5 mil extra, I doubt they were adequately monitoring the other 80 mil in the first place.
Orlanth wrote: Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.
ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.
This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today. Countries need to screen immigrants better to weed out the donkey-caves (not just terrorists, but drug dealers and other criminal types as well), and it's impossible to do that when you're taking in so many you can't open the gates wide enough. Also, notice these particular immigrants don't mingle with the population at all and in fact want to practice Sharia law in their communities, despite the law of the land contradicting Sharia law on most issues. And the authorities just let them do it, because if you restrict them from it you must be a hateful bigot. If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.
Put it another way: Would you let some people live in your house if you know that they hate you, they hate everything about you, and some of them might be plotting to kill you? And they also don't respect the rules in your house, wanting to live by their own rules instead for vague, possibly religiously-motivated, reasons. Should you really continue to let them live with you, given the above conditions?
I'd let people stay in my house if their old neighbors wanted to decapitate them.
Germany got hit because they're taking refugees, yeah - because if they stop taking refugees, then some truly evil people can keep preying on them. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this attack, but to swing around and blame it on the poor souls trying to escape horrific acts of violence is exactly what those maniacs want you to do.
Spinner wrote: I'd let people stay in my house if their old neighbors wanted to decapitate them.
Germany got hit because they're taking refugees, yeah - because if they stop taking refugees, then some truly evil people can keep preying on them. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this attack, but to swing around and blame it on the poor souls trying to escape horrific acts of violence is exactly what those maniacs want you to do.
A typical Anglo-American response. Cause major problems in a region, withdraw then make value judgements on the people stuggling with the consequences of your own actions. The mess that is the middle east is on the US and the UK, now both seem to want to escalate and antagonise Russia. Europe is entirely better off with less influence from either of them.
ZergSmasher wrote: If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.
I see you have a US flag by your name, could you clarify which native american tribe you have joined and adopted the cultural practices of?
ZergSmasher wrote: If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.
I see you have a US flag by your name, could you clarify which native american tribe you have joined and adopted the cultural practices of?
Spinner wrote: I'd let people stay in my house if their old neighbors wanted to decapitate them.
Germany got hit because they're taking refugees, yeah - because if they stop taking refugees, then some truly evil people can keep preying on them. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this attack, but to swing around and blame it on the poor souls trying to escape horrific acts of violence is exactly what those maniacs want you to do.
A typical Anglo-American response. Cause major problems in a region, withdraw then make value judgements on the people stuggling with the consequences of your own actions. The mess that is the middle east is on the US and the UK, now both seem to want to escalate and antagonise Russia. Europe is entirely better off with less influence from either of them.
What an interesting thing to tell someone that you don't know the political positions of.
Who am I antagonizing, apart from the people who point and scream 'the refugees are at fault!' every time there's a terrorist attack, and then I t turns out they were radicalized nationals or immigrated years ago...
ZergSmasher wrote: If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.
I see you have a US flag by your name, could you clarify which native american tribe you have joined and adopted the cultural practices of?
I was born and raised in the US, therefore technically I am native to America. Now, I'm not descended from the original inhabitants (the ones we think of as Native Americans), that's certainly true. But I am an American, I didn't move here from another country. If I did move to another country, I would attempt to fit into that country's culture. For instance, if I moved to England, I'd probably start drinking more tea and saying "God save the Queen!" (as a slightly facetious example, not trying to make fun of British people).
ZergSmasher wrote: I was born and raised in the US, therefore technically I am native to America. Now, I'm not descended from the original inhabitants (the ones we think of as Native Americans), that's certainly true. But I am an American, I didn't move here from another country. If I did move to another country, I would attempt to fit into that country's culture. For instance, if I moved to England, I'd probably start drinking more tea and saying "God save the Queen!" (as a slightly facetious example, not trying to make fun of British people).
I see, so once immigrants refuse to adopt the culture of the country they're immigrating to their descendants have no obligation to do so? It's ok to have isolated groups carrying over the culture of their countries of origin as long as they've been doing it long enough to have kids? Somehow I don't think you'd be making the same argument about a Muslim child of immigrants advocating Sharia law, yelling "America is evil", etc.
Frazzled wrote: Yes, but why make the attack? At least the old anarchist bombers had a point.
They didn't really. Blowing up a government post office was never going to cause anyone to suddenly understand all that anarchist nonsense, and certainly not believe it.
Same for the various communist groups, most of which faded away decades ago (there are still some Maoists in India, incredibly enough).
This isn't to dismiss anyone who's ever wanted to take up arms for a cause. Some of them are viable, and just occasionally they actually win. But almost all of them are their own self-contained little delusions.
Frazzled wrote: I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
To create fear and anger?
To a third party of no relation? Again, for what purpose?
I think you are on to something there. This attack wasn't a deliberate plot by a terrorist power (ISIL) it was a mad lashing out of anger by a disaffected individual. Apparently the guy was living in a derelict warehouse, so clearly his refugee life in Germany wasn't too happy and successful.
Spinner wrote: I'd let people stay in my house if their old neighbors wanted to decapitate them.
Germany got hit because they're taking refugees, yeah - because if they stop taking refugees, then some truly evil people can keep preying on them. My heart goes out to everyone affected by this attack, but to swing around and blame it on the poor souls trying to escape horrific acts of violence is exactly what those maniacs want you to do.
A typical Anglo-American response. Cause major problems in a region, withdraw then make value judgements on the people stuggling with the consequences of your own actions. The mess that is the middle east is on the US and the UK, now both seem to want to escalate and antagonise Russia. Europe is entirely better off with less influence from either of them.
Interesting view, if completely and mind fethingly wrong. Read a history book before you make such stupid pronouncements.
ZergSmasher wrote: If a person legitimately wants to emigrate to another country, they should join the population of that country, and that includes its culture and respecting its native citizens. It doesn't mean turning their local community into a smaller version of their old country.
I see you have a US flag by your name, could you clarify which native american tribe you have joined and adopted the cultural practices of?
The semi nomadic warrior culture of the Tejas tribe myself. Come spend your money at our casinoes pale faced devil and our enjoy our fine local beverages and native cuisine.
Frazzled wrote: I don't understand these attacks that literally have no point.
To create fear and anger?
To a third party of no relation? Again, for what purpose?
I think you are on to something there. This attack wasn't a deliberate plot by a terrorist power (ISIL) it was a mad lashing out of anger by a disaffected individual. Apparently the guy was living in a derelict warehouse, so clearly his refugee life in Germany wasn't too happy and successful.
Terror attacks don't target only those responsible(for one those are often out of reach). Also ISIS is big one on propaganda that _anybody_ who is not one of them is valid target. Ever read their propaganda material? They are methodical in drilling in "there's no innocent bystanders. If you are not one of us you are one of the targets".
And as for purpose. Further divide against christians and muslims. That leads to breeding ground for recruits, money and power for ISIS. Aka furthering their goal.
Orlanth wrote: Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.
I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.
Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.
ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.
So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.
But just look at the attacks in France, both Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris attacks had nationals serving as foreign fighters in either Yemen or Syria and known to the authorities. The fact that they were able to commit these acts show a lack of oversight into their activities. The same goes for the Nice attack, the individuals inspiring the attacker were known to the authorities, but yet again managed to plan an attack.
There is no 'but' the French are way too complacent. Yes the French police new of threats, but it was tomorrows job.
A further issue is that you need hard evidence that these people fought there to convict them, something intelligence agencies are frequently unwilling to give up to put these individuals on trial.
Or change the law. In UK law it is illegal to travel to go on jihad, even if you dont actually fight.
There is a reasonable assumption that there are thousands of Europeans who have or are fighting for IS, yet how many trials against them have you heard of?
Once or twice in the UK. It doesn't make the press much. I get the impression the government want to deradicalise jihadis rather than incarcerate an thus harden them.
If the reports are true than the Pakistani had requested political asylum, while in the case of the Paris attackers the few non nationals had used fake passports to get in with the help of the nationals. The real terrorists wont apply for anything but will most likely go underground,
The Berlin attacker is a real terrorist, and the fact that he attacked after being in Germany for only a few weeks indicates that he came to do just that. Perhaps he was a lone wolf whose handler is back in Pakistan and is operating without a network.
the real risk is from those radicalized nationals that have the network to get there accomplices in amongst the refugees or can turn desperate refugees. The refugees aren't the problem, it is the inadequate ability to process tens of thousands of people on tiny islands and part of that is because Europe is unwilling to spend more money to do so. The terrorists are part of another problem of illegal activities and if a country of 80 million people can't monitor 1.5 mil extra, I doubt they were adequately monitoring the other 80 mil in the first place.
I suspect it is a lot easier to monitor people who have credit cards, social security numbers, bank accounts phone lines and social media accounts. Also you dont need to monitor the entire population, just the ones you flag as dangerous.
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.
Orlanth wrote: Radicals traveling to join ISI are scum, but they are detectable scum. They already have passports, a lot of them like their Facebook and Twitter according to press reports.
I guess that keeping tabs on them is relatively easy, Besides Russian airstrikes deal with enough of them anyway. What a pity.
Terrorists hiding in vast population influxes are the problem, as you dont know who they are and must find out. They need not act to be effective. Europe, including Germany, has no choice but to direct intelligence agencies onto risk assessing vast numbers of people and watching those deemed dodgy.
ISIS already made stated claim to having infiltrated the refugee column from Syria. Once this was taken seriously the vast numbers of people becomes a logjam for security.
So meanwhile someone else comes in from Morocco or Pakistan. The system is overstretched so they arent monitored enough to determine if they are a terror threat.
But just look at the attacks in France, both Charlie Hebdo and the later Paris attacks had nationals serving as foreign fighters in either Yemen or Syria and known to the authorities. The fact that they were able to commit these acts show a lack of oversight into their activities. The same goes for the Nice attack, the individuals inspiring the attacker were known to the authorities, but yet again managed to plan an attack.
There is no 'but' the French are way too complacent. Yes the French police new of threats, but it was tomorrows job.
If I can't say but France because of complacency you can't say but refugees. We have no idea why German authorities failed to identify the attacker beforehand. These flaws of 'complacency' happen in every country at some point, this is the year Germany had several attacks which could mean they had gotten complacent as well, because there weren't many occurrences. It is a valid comparison to make that 1. the police were aware of the terror links and 2. that France took significantly fewer refugees than Germany yet was unable to prevent two attacks perpetrated by European/French nationals.
A further issue is that you need hard evidence that these people fought there to convict them, something intelligence agencies are frequently unwilling to give up to put these individuals on trial.
Or change the law. In UK law it is illegal to travel to go on jihad, even if you dont actually fight.
Proving that people go on Jihad is the hard part. If someone goes on vacation to Turkey you cant exactly constantly monitor him and to get hard evidence security agencies will have to participate and demonstrate how they gather intel which may or may not be valid in a court of law. They also might not want to provide this intel so as not to compromise other surveillance. Almost all countries have laws against participating in a terrorist organization, bringing it to court successfully is the hard part.
There is a reasonable assumption that there are thousands of Europeans who have or are fighting for IS, yet how many trials against them have you heard of?
Once or twice in the UK. It doesn't make the press much. I get the impression the government want to deradicalise jihadis rather than incarcerate an thus harden them.
The article above implies that some are put on trial.
Exactly, we only see some put on trial because of previously mentioned problems. I take issue with radicalizing those that actively fought for IS or were trained by them, as they are already hardened. European countries try to monitor them to see if they plan to continue at home. Interesting side note, there is the theory in academia that allowing these individuals to go and fight is actually a good thing, because it de-romanticizes the struggle and cause in cases, basically they get it out of their system.
If the reports are true than the Pakistani had requested political asylum, while in the case of the Paris attackers the few non nationals had used fake passports to get in with the help of the nationals. The real terrorists wont apply for anything but will most likely go underground,
The Berlin attacker is a real terrorist, and the fact that he attacked after being in Germany for only a few weeks indicates that he came to do just that. Perhaps he was a lone wolf whose handler is back in Pakistan and is operating without a network.
Just to take in the new facts. They aren't sure if the Pakistani was the driver and the Polish passenger seems to have been shot, so the hijacking story seems to be the accurate one. The fact that the attacker was able to get a firearm is already a failing of the security system without going for the refugee angle.
The Pakistani suspect however has been in touch with German police for minor offences. That seems like a bad MO to come into contact with police beforehand if you're already planning to commit attacks. Based of the story so far and living conditions shown, it is quite possible he was radicalized after entry by being disillusioned by his treatment.
the real risk is from those radicalized nationals that have the network to get there accomplices in amongst the refugees or can turn desperate refugees. The refugees aren't the problem, it is the inadequate ability to process tens of thousands of people on tiny islands and part of that is because Europe is unwilling to spend more money to do so. The terrorists are part of another problem of illegal activities and if a country of 80 million people can't monitor 1.5 mil extra, I doubt they were adequately monitoring the other 80 mil in the first place.
I suspect it is a lot easier to monitor people who have credit cards, social security numbers, bank accounts phone lines and social media accounts. Also you dont need to monitor the entire population, just the ones you flag as dangerous.
The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.
Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.
Orlanth wrote: The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.
Why limit the process to refugees? After all, if someone is traveling to a country for the sole purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack why not just come in as a tourist?
The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.
Orlanth wrote: The problem here is that you have to sift through every refugee and categorise them, and do so quickly, they have a lifetime to categorise the native population as threats or not-threats.
Why limit the process to refugees? After all, if someone is traveling to a country for the sole purpose of carrying out a terrorist attack why not just come in as a tourist?
Ok guessing here because are not spooks but we can keep it logical.
Tourists need visas, dodgy tourists might not get a visa until vetted. Non-visa country tourists will be on file in their native country, a routine question is asked, possibly at customs. Is this guy on your warning list? If yes detain, if no let them continue.
Tourists and businessmen are covered by existing security arrangements as citizens of the source country. Its also one of the reasons for biometric passports.
Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.
Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).
To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.
tneva82 wrote: The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.
May lead back to a larger nest of scumbags. Might not be alone. There gonna run somewhere. But finding them be difficult.
America wanna lend the perp a few week stay at Guantanamo bay... All inclusive interrogation package. ?
tneva82 wrote: The original suspect is now released so guess he's no longer considered as suspect. So the one who did this is still free out there...Wonder if he/she is going to try to hide or do another attack.
May lead back to a larger nest of scumbags. Might not be alone. There gonna run somewhere. But finding them be difficult.
America wanna lend the perp a few week stay at Guantanamo bay... All inclusive interrogation package. ?
Sorry, no can do, Obama closed that place eight years ago, like he promised.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plice are sifting through video footage, and have put an appeal out for personal photos and phone images whivh the public has added to. Thios means that there are a lot of anglkes covered by video that wont normally be.
In all likelihood they have images of the driver now, which they can feed into CCTV footage elsewhere to track his movements.
It might appear a little late but the police can tell where he went. Likely having all that info resulted in the release of the guy they did have. "I am not involved", might not cut it with the authorities otherwise and he wasn't held long.
There is a difference between having a point and convincing yourself you have a point. "If we commit a highly public act of violence then people will get on board" isn't just an idea that didn't work in the end, it was always a fething stupid that was never going to work.
There is a difference between having a point and convincing yourself you have a point. "If we commit a highly public act of violence then people will get on board" isn't just an idea that didn't work in the end, it was always a fething stupid that was never going to work.
Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.
tneva82 wrote: Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.
It's the underpants gnome thing.
1) Sow distrust and fear
2) ???
3) Caliphate
The anarchists were the same.
1) Public violence as a form of propaganda
2) ????
3) Anarchist revolution.
Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.
Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).
To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.
You have both swallowed a double helping of missing the point.
It is irrelevant whether terrorists are refugees, or what are the statistics probabilities of being victim of an attack.
Two points are relevant.
1. There has been an influx of about a million refugees into Germany from the middle east.
2. ISIL has been know to have attempted to infiltrate the refugee migration.
Then there is one relevant point to draw from this.
1. The security services therefore need to vet about a million people in a very short space of time and perform a risk assessment.
This is relevant solely because:
1. The security service personnel focus and budget is not unlimited, and this task absorbs a lot of attention.
Consequently there is one concern:
1. The security services are distracted by the influx and it is thus easier than normal to get a terrorist into Germany, from anywhere, and to operate said terrorists mission.
That is all that is being said. Whether people should be pro-refugee, anti-refugee, looking at refugees by crime or terror statistics etc etc is all irrelevant to the topic. Immigration policy is a topic relevant to society and should not be swept under the carpet, but analysis of the terror attack in Berlin raises reasonable concerns in separation to this.
However it would be ignorant to dismiss the influx of refugees as a factor purely because one may be in favour of welcoming immigration for any reason. It would be the case of the truth of overstretch security services due to the scale of immigration being unwanted information, and thus not being 'true'. A factual based approach is better when dealing with the hard reality of terrorism.
For example had the million or so refugees arrived in Germany over the course of five years rather than one the distraction of the German state security may or may not have been lessened and they may or may not have been able to respond in time to negate this threat. We now know that Germany was warned pf imminent attack, and the Germans are not complacent, they are however overworked due to the massive and demographically sudden influx of refugees.
tneva82 wrote: Yet ISIS is actually getting what they want with all these terror attacks. They want to sow distrust and fear. They are succeeding with that.
It's the underpants gnome thing.
1) Sow distrust and fear
2) ???
3) Caliphate
The anarchists were the same.
1) Public violence as a form of propaganda
2) ????
3) Anarchist revolution.
They are getting more recruits, money and influence the more distrust and mutual hatred they manage to inspire. That's pretty good success for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it often happens like that, unfortunately. OTOH, the police will be on higher alert guarding places.
Has ther been often attack quick after another? Apart from trouble of coordinating wouldn't it be more effective to lull people into sense of safety and then boom
Again, if its so easy to monitor why do these kinds of attacks still occur. Refugees get registered with some of the same systems, as well as being grouped in what are basically detention centres until they are given the right to stay. If anyone should be easy to monitor it is the people all living in the same area dependent on government agencies for their stay in the country.
Again, lets put this in perspective. The German homicide rate is close to 1 in a 100.000. If we take attacks by refugees this year there are four deadly attacks, two by Syrian Refugees, one by an Afghan and one suspected by a Pakistani, only the Pakistani managed to take multiple lives. The refugee crisis was never about Pakistanis or Afghans in the first place as that has been ongoing for decades. So this refugee crisis which is washing Europe away in a tide of violence as the fear mongering of some politicians want us to believe is complete fiction. Even if we pretend to forget the conditions these people fled from and are being brought into for a second the amount of attacks they commit compared to German nationals is at best a negligible increase. A negligible increase I hasten to add, only because of this event in Berlin, if this happened next year they would be far below the average rate in 2016. As it stands now it is 14 on a 1.100.000 population of refugees (taking into account the new death toll of 12). This is a tiny amount, we should let 1.1 mil people just rot because of 4 bad apples? If that's true no country anywhere should take any migrants from anywhere, as they are almost as likely to kill people.
Even having a lifetime of sifting through the native population did not do Germany much good in the 70's and 80's when domestic terrorism was much higher than it is now in Germany. We seem to want to pretend that all agencies are completely failing us in keeping us safe while in perspective they are doing much better than a few decades ago. Which also serves as a nice demonstration that you can't ever consider your native population that much safer, also reflecting on the Neo-Nazi terror cell a year ago.
Thank you. There's so much fear mongering because these types of attacks get the most publicity. Its the same with refugee/immigrant crime rates. They tend to be as criminal as the native population (or a bit below) but a chunk of their crimes are related to their paperwork/refugee status and not regular crime. They can't afford that if they want to stay here while getting lost in Germany's bureaucracy happens to all of us (no matter what nationality).
To keep the scope of these attacks in context: I don't have the links right now but if I remember correctly the chance of dying from a terrorist attack in the west is about a hundred (or a thousand, I think it was thousand) times smaller than being a pedestrian who gets killed in a car accident. Yes it happens, it sucks and it's unavoidable. Agencies try to prevent as many as possible but you can't eliminate all threats all the time no matter what you do. And not-accepting refugees in also not a solution. Terrorist attacks happened before and they don't happen because of refugees. Using the refugee status as a way in is one of the worse ideas as you are under more scrutiny and usually don't have influence over where you end up after you have been processed.
You have both swallowed a double helping of missing the point.
It is irrelevant whether terrorists are refugees, or what are the statistics probabilities of being victim of an attack.
Two points are relevant.
1. There has been an influx of about a million refugees into Germany from the middle east.
2. ISIL has been know to have attempted to infiltrate the refugee migration.
Then there is one relevant point to draw from this.
1. The security services therefore need to vet about a million people in a very short space of time and perform a risk assessment.
This is relevant solely because:
1. The security service personnel focus and budget is not unlimited, and this task absorbs a lot of attention.
Consequently there is one concern:
1. The security services are distracted by the influx and it is thus easier than normal to get a terrorist into Germany, from anywhere, and to operate said terrorists mission.
That is all that is being said. Whether people should be pro-refugee, anti-refugee, looking at refugees by crime or terror statistics etc etc is all irrelevant to the topic. Immigration policy is a topic relevant to society and should not be swept under the carpet, but analysis of the terror attack in Berlin raises reasonable concerns in separation to this.
However it would be ignorant to dismiss the influx of refugees as a factor purely because one may be in favour of welcoming immigration for any reason. It would be the case of the truth of overstretch security services due to the scale of immigration being unwanted information, and thus not being 'true'. A factual based approach is better when dealing with the hard reality of terrorism.
For example had the million or so refugees arrived in Germany over the course of five years rather than one the distraction of the German state security may or may not have been lessened and they may or may not have been able to respond in time to negate this threat. We now know that Germany was warned pf imminent attack, and the Germans are not complacent, they are however overworked due to the massive and demographically sudden influx of refugees.
On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France. Going of your points.
1. There has been an influx of 1.1 mil refugees into Germany, with only 4 people who actually decided to commit an attack.
2. IS has attempted to infiltrate refugees, but its been over two years since the start of the refugee crisis and Berlin is the first time that they have managed to kill more than one person in Germany. Either the people they tried to send over are grossly incompetent, or more likely they have been able to recruit them here due to living conditions.
The relevant point to draw from this is that the refugee population is not anymore dangerous or even less dangerous than the radicalized nationals, who are even now suspected of hiding the attacker in Berlin, possibly also enabling him acces to a firearm.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them. Let me remind you that neither France or the U.S. has masses of refugees come in as a consequence of the refugee crisis. You can try to handwave this away as complacency, but it is a curious occurrence is it not?
Again, on the contrary, politicians and parties such as those of Wilders in my country or the AfD in Germany would like us to believe that refugees are dangerous murderers, or as you say hiding them. Statistics have to be shown to combat false perceptions of insecurity. Of course immigration and refugee policy should be a separate discussion, but each and every time people want to link immigration or refugees to terrorism out come the statistics to prove those people wrong. If the last few years have shown us anything, it is better to be afraid of your neighbour than the Syrian in the detention center. You are certainly allowed to discuss terrorists posing as refugees as a factor in terrorism, just as I am certainly allowed to demonstrate that terrorists posing as refugees are almost synonymous with regular homicide statistics. Now I would agree with you that it should be looked at as a significant factor if there were dozens or hundreds of attacks, but its been four. Refugees as a whole don't seem to hide any more murderers than the native population, indeed looking at France or the U.S. in recent years its very much the opposite.
The only thing were doing right now is speculating what kind of effect refugees have on the security apparatus. You argue it could be between 1% and 99%, I'm just saying that with the data we have know it seems that if it has a 99% effect they certainly are placing too large of an emphasis on refugees for what we currently know is too little result.
Edit: Just to comment on your CCTV and video post. Germany is very opposed to those kinds of surveillance due to its history, so they have very little CCTV to go off, this is why they arrested the Pakistani, because they got his description from a witness instead of any video evidence.
Edit 2: The new suspect was apparently already known to intelligence agencies as having contacts with radicalized Muslims and trying to by a firearm from a police informant. Can we put this one on complacency too if it turn outs to be him, just like France?
ZergSmasher wrote: This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today.
They'd also be alive today if you lot hadn't been mass murdering muslims for decades now.
ZergSmasher wrote: This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today.
They'd also be alive today if you lot hadn't been mass murdering muslims for decades now.
Muslims have been mass murdering infidels for centuries if you want to go down the "nuh uh, you started it!" route.
Your statement is also a perfect example of selective application of transitive guilt.
I remember my lecturer in university trying to explain Muslim atrocities carried out in the modern age as a response to the crusades. I said that this explanation has two major flaws; one, it overlooks the fact that muslims had been attacking Christians centuries before the crusades (which if anything were a Christian counterattack to take back the lands they'd lost). And two, considering how long ago the crusades were, at what point do you say "look, get over yourself and just let it go"?
As the US wasn't in existence and the New World wasn't discovered, its difficult to use that as a justification for attacks on the US. Germany as well-as it wasn't in existence either.
I remember my lecturer in university trying to explain Muslim atrocities carried out in the modern age as a response to the crusades. I said that this explanation has two major flaws; one, it overlooks the fact that muslims had been attacking Christians centuries before the crusades (which if anything were a Christian counterattack to take back the lands they'd lost). And two, considering how long ago the crusades were, at what point do you say "look, get over yourself and just let it go"?
She didn't like my response one bit.
Why go to ancient history when modern era has plenty of western countries messing around there and bombing stuff for money and personal gain.
I remember my lecturer in university trying to explain Muslim atrocities carried out in the modern age as a response to the crusades. I said that this explanation has two major flaws; one, it overlooks the fact that muslims had been attacking Christians centuries before the crusades (which if anything were a Christian counterattack to take back the lands they'd lost). And two, considering how long ago the crusades were, at what point do you say "look, get over yourself and just let it go"?
She didn't like my response one bit.
Why go to ancient history when modern era has plenty of western countries messing around there and bombing stuff for money and personal gain.
Out of curiosity, what money has the US gained from our recent military efforts? The only personal gain I can think of is combat experience.
I remember my lecturer in university trying to explain Muslim atrocities carried out in the modern age as a response to the crusades. I said that this explanation has two major flaws; one, it overlooks the fact that muslims had been attacking Christians centuries before the crusades (which if anything were a Christian counterattack to take back the lands they'd lost). And two, considering how long ago the crusades were, at what point do you say "look, get over yourself and just let it go"?
She didn't like my response one bit.
Yeah... you can go back and forth since before the Ionic wars/battle of marathon (predating both Christianity and Islam) and these two areas are *still* going at it.
Its almost as if this planets history is one of multiple civilizations clashing, doing horrible things to one another in the process, waxing and waning in power over one another, where the spoils go to the victor for as long as they can hold it.
Why go to ancient history when modern era has plenty of western countries messing around there and bombing stuff for money and personal gain.
Because historical facts do not have a best before date.
Interestingly enough whichever side is getting the bad end of the stick always wants the line between "history that doesn't matter" and "history that does matter" drawn right at the point where they stopped beating on the other guy and the other guy started beating on them.
Disciple of Fate already mentioned some stuff so I'll just a bit:
Orlanth wrote:
You have both swallowed a double helping of missing the point.
It is irrelevant whether terrorists are refugees, or what are the statistics probabilities of being victim of an attack.
Two points are relevant.
1. There has been an influx of about a million refugees into Germany from the middle east.
2. ISIL has been know to have attempted to infiltrate the refugee migration.
If they really wanted to infiltrate Germany there are much subtler, easier, directer, and quicker ways to do this. Refugees usually don't just just appear wherever they want to be and they are supervised to a degree when they arrive here. Entering the country via a student visa (or any other way that looks normal) would be so much more effective for their nefarious goals.
Then there is one relevant point to draw from this.
1. The security services therefore need to vet about a million people in a very short space of time and perform a risk assessment.
This is relevant solely because:
1. The security service personnel focus and budget is not unlimited, and this task absorbs a lot of attention.
Consequently there is one concern:
1. The security services are distracted by the influx and it is thus easier than normal to get a terrorist into Germany, from anywhere, and to operate said terrorists mission.
And entering Germany in a non-conspicuous way gives them all the above mentioned benefits with the exception of "hiding within other refugees and hoping to not be found by overworked security services", and if I remember correctly refugees actually point out "refugees" who look suspicious to the authorities which again makes the job of the infiltrator harder and helps security services. If they really want to infiltrate as refugees then they are some sort of rube goldberg-ish dumb terrorists. Sure it might work but any other way is way more efficient.
That is all that is being said. Whether people should be pro-refugee, anti-refugee, looking at refugees by crime or terror statistics etc etc is all irrelevant to the topic. Immigration policy is a topic relevant to society and should not be swept under the carpet, but analysis of the terror attack in Berlin raises reasonable concerns in separation to this.
However it would be ignorant to dismiss the influx of refugees as a factor purely because one may be in favour of welcoming immigration for any reason. It would be the case of the truth of overstretch security services due to the scale of immigration being unwanted information, and thus not being 'true'. A factual based approach is better when dealing with the hard reality of terrorism.
For example had the million or so refugees arrived in Germany over the course of five years rather than one the distraction of the German state security may or may not have been lessened and they may or may not have been able to respond in time to negate this threat. We now know that Germany was warned pf imminent attack, and the Germans are not complacent, they are however overworked due to the massive and demographically sudden influx of refugees.
The statistical relevance and context is not irrelevant just because it doesn't confirm what "besorgte Bürger" ("concerned citizen") fear. Getting emotional after an attack is normal but then reacting on these emotions without thinking it through is the worst one can do. We have more to fear from Reichsbürger who are hoarding weapons than from refugees. You advocate for a factual based approach but want ignore the statistical reality. How's that supposed to work? You are peddling just more of the concerned citizen rhetoric with imaginary scenarios. Refugees aren't just let loose freely wherever they arrive (they are processed and some are even sent back). Total security doesn't exist and pushing the idea that one has to be afraid of refugees just to feel safe is kinda crummy because they are usually some of the most vulnerable people (they are not refugee-ing for the fun of it).
And immigration policy has nothing to do with refugees. Some might get permanent residency but usually they are sent back once the danger isn't there anymore (even if it's many years later). This can be quite harsh especially on kids who arrive here at a young age, integrate, make friends, learn the language (and often can't even use their mother language anymore), and have a life here but are sent back due to the strictness of the law.
On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France.
You point is that refuges are statistically nota threat and also are not seen to be responsible for actioned attacks and very few terrorist infiltrators have been detected amongsrt the large influx of Syrian refugees. So in your opinion it is unwelcoming and unhelpful to focus on them, If that was your point, then I understood it.
1. There has been an influx of 1.1 mil refugees into Germany, with only 4 people who actually decided to commit an attack.
2. IS has attempted to infiltrate refugees, but its been over two years since the start of the refugee crisis and Berlin is the first time that they have managed to kill more than one person in Germany. Either the people they tried to send over are grossly incompetent, or more likely they have been able to recruit them here due to living conditions.
The relevant point to draw from this is that the refugee population is not anymore dangerous or even less dangerous than the radicalized nationals, who are even now suspected of hiding the attacker in Berlin, possibly also enabling him access to a firearm.
Ok first however you cut it whether recent arrival or due to Moslems born in the EU this entire problem is imported. Jihadism is imported from the Islamic world, and arrives as a side effect of unintegrated Islamic culture in Europe. Europe has been exposed to Islam for a very long time, but what is happening now is new and it the result of unintegrated immigrant cultures from the Islamic world.
Second the statistic of 1.1 million refugees yielding only four known terrorists who have committed an attack is a very easy sounding statistic. So there isnt a problem them?
Sorry wrong.
1. Four is four too many. Four is also a lot, not a little Take any other ethnic people group migrating to or within Europe you would likely not have as many. And remember this is an active threat. If an Irish team gets into Europe and fans come to the match it is not unlikely that someone in the crowd had connections to the sectarisnism in the Troubles, but they aren't likely active and aren't a threat to Germany anyway. I doubt they would need special attention, more then football fan normally get.
2. Approximately one in a quarter of a million refugees is a terrorist who has known to have already committed an attack. How many more are committed terrorists yet to have done so? We don't have a figure for that, and I suspect we would be alarmed if we had. How many trained sleepers. Actioned terrorists are a relatively small percentage of the whole. Most of those people will be in fact deserters from ISIS or similar causes, Terrorism 101 teaches you to send terrorists with clean hands into the target country, as they are less likely to be spotted . You have to know of them from their sympathies and their training not their activities.
Then you have on top of this a large number of sympathisers who have done nothing wrong yet, but have leanings towards ISIS and may be persuaded to sign up when in Europe.
3. The fact that we know know there were four means that the security services were right to investigate. They found four on the first pass through the data/ How many have they missed? Do they need another look? Also you have to look at groups of people if refugee A B and C come to Munchen and settle in together nothing happens, but when their friend D arrives they all get back into bad habits.
You don't need many instigators to radicalise an inherently part radicalised community. So its not just ne pass through the data. I will admit that now they have documentation this will be easier.
4. The fact that we know there were four means that the whole 1.1 million needed to be sifted, largely they arrived without documentation and without dossiers from native security services assessing their threat, which a migrant from within the EU will have. You will need to assemble a life history of each and every one to find those four. If the number was more scary, like a hundred known terrorists the wokload would still be essentially the same, though more double checking and deeper cross-referencing will be needed. Its an enormous amount of work and would be very time consuming personnel consuming and distracting for those who need to commit their time to protecting Germany from terror.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them.
No you cant stop them all, but you can try and in doing so stop most. This was why the IRA found it very difficult to operate in the latter half of the Troubles. It wasn't for lack of funding or commitment.
You don't see much about the successes:
Let me remind you that neither France or the U.S. has masses of refugees come in as a consequence of the refugee crisis. You can try to handwave this away as complacency, but it is a curious occurrence is it not?
French complacency is a separate issue. Its a problem with the French police at just about any time. Getting international cooperation from the French police and not just from the UK (though there might be special love there) is a noted problem. They are known to be laid back, they are known to drop the ball. France is known as an easy target, it has that rep. That rep extends to the terror networks. Terrorists think, right or wrong, that is is extremely hard to enter Israel undetected, they fear the Israeli security services. That know the Uk is easy to enter and its politics are a soft touch, but they also believe in the rep of the UK security services and expect to be caught unless they act very carefully. The NSA and FBI have similar reps. France has a rep of being sleepy and easy to attack, so they get targeted.
Again, on the contrary, politicians and parties such as those of Wilders in my country or the AfD in Germany would like us to believe that refugees are dangerous murderers, or as you say hiding them.
No. Even Wilders doenst say that, neither does the AfD. They highlight Islamic refugees. That is the first distinction.
Second there is a case to answer for and many people in Europe are waking up to it. Women know that lonely walks in dark woods are not safe, but now have to add town squares and festivals as rape threat zones, entirely due to mass immigration. That is the hard reality, and one progressives repeatedly gloss over or try to dismiss with false statistics.
Yes four in a million actively known prior terrorists appears to be a little, but its a lot. Yes immigrant crime appears to be a little compared to national reported crime statistics, but it shows an alarming rise. Also like in Sweden a lot of these crimes are being deliberately ignored or the attackers ethnicity glossed over to maintain the rosy statistics that all is well.
Wilders et al have a point, but defending that point is not my intention here. My main problem with those who are actively complaining about Islamic extremism and lack of cultural integration is that it has been left to the alt-right to make comment as mainstream politicians refused to do so.
The UK had that problem, thankfully the word is had. New Labour allowed the Islamification of Birmingham primary schools and rape gangs on Rotherham because they didn't want to upset the unity zeitgeist. Cameron had the balls to admit there was a problem, yes parts of the Islamic minority in the UK had been getting away with horrendous abuses, it wasn't an alt-right scare story, and he was going to take action on it. Cameron moved very swiftly on the radicalised schools in 2010 shortly after he took power. He also dealt with the rape gangs in Rotherham. The Tories have since had problems because the full story is a powder keg even they had had to keep the lid on - Notably that to keep up the national rhetroic of community cohesion the parents of girls who were abducted had been censured by the police for being racist for complaining about their childrens rapes. One horrible case of a father who has arrested for a breach of the peace because he wanted to rescue his daughter from a house where she was being raped by a gang of Moslem men. Reportedly the police still did nothing to help the child. The head of the public inquiry into this mess have been changed several times, and I think the government is trying to find a way to wind it up because while the Tories are willing to stop the abuse, unlike Labour, they are not willing to let the public know how bad it had got because it would provide ammunition to anti-Islamic groups.
At least the rapists were put on trial quietly and are in prison now with long sentences, and the Islamic local community knows that their access to R&R at the expense of British children has been removed.
Crap like that is what a society must do if it want to maintain the illusion that all is well and mas Islamic non-integration is not a problem. If you don't like the AfD then mainstream not alt-right polticians need to step up admit that there is a case to answer for and take responsibility. German women are not meat puppets, or at least shouldn't be. And no its not a 'tiny minority' of refugees from Islamic cultures who think they are, its a belief shared by lots of people which is why such attacks are often by large gangs.
Statistics have to be shown to combat false perceptions of insecurity. Of course immigration and refugee policy should be a separate discussion, but each and every time people want to link immigration or refugees to terrorism out come the statistics to prove those people wrong.
Actually your statisitcs only appear t prove them wrong. They prove them right. Four detected known ex-terrorists in an influx of a million recent refugees is quite a bit, it is indicative that ISIS have tried to infiltrate. You have your iceberg dead ahead. How much of it dont you see.
Its a bit like spinning this:
"Good news patient we have looked at your blood sample and only found four blood cells showing signs of HIV."
What you are missing is that unlike previous influxes of immigration it is on the terms of the immigrant. Germany has welcomed Moslem migrants for generations and while they have had some problems this is normal in any multi-cultural society. But the nation was still predominantly German. Suddenly refugees means a whole community imported wholecloth, which means it comes with its own societal values attached. To make matters worse due to the progressives an their deep need for head in sand denial about the problems of integrating a culture which views women as inferior, infidel as infidel and considers rape just a fact of life in a male dominated world.
So you have a culture which radical islamics have contempt for and see as weak, which encourages them. And you give them good reason to come to that assessment. Radical clerics believe not unrealistically that they can dominate Europe, they are strong in their beliefs European culture is weak on ours and they see the frequent demonstration of that as blood in the water.
I think they are wrong, but not due to progressives but because of the backlash which is inevitable when the concerns become mainstream and can no longer be written off as alt-right scares. The mainstream right can then deal with the issues with public blessing and the progressive left will have to shut up for once, and they will because much of the anger will be directed at them and the public base of support for progressives will evaporate. It need not end up in an alt-right hell, it might yet end up in a massive showdown between radical Islam and the European majority though, and the long it is left before leaders step up the worse and bloodier it will be.
Its a lose lose, but it need not have happened if progressives had not got in the way and insisted that we live in a multi-culutral utopia spoiled by the alt-right and a tiny handful of religous extremists.
Anyway what has actually changed is that you have whole communities imported, Which means you don have the old trickle of immigrants, mostly from Turkey, who get jobs in the lucrative German building trade. You have whole columns of refugees arriving with no jobs for them. They are also settled as whole communities, and when I mean that I don't necessarily mean in the intigrated sense. The only ones who will have integration are those who are extended families and those who have common cause.
If the last few years have shown us anything, it is better to be afraid of your neighbour than the Syrian in the detention center.
So much wrong with this statement.
No. First its unlikely your neighbour if taken from the German population as a whole excepting only Syrian refugees is a problem. skewed statistics are skewed. Germany is one of the safer places to live in Europe, but it is getting worse, and notably some types of offense,like rape are getting more prevalent and this is being connected to immigration due to witness reports.
Second it also it takes to time settle in and get some terror done. There is a good reason you see people long staying in Europe committing attacks, they have got settled and built a web of contacts and a powerbase. Those Tunisians had settled in.
Third many of the Syrian refugees are in camps at the moment, that is a bad time to kick off, they are well monitored.
Fourth they are being processed and vetted, so the radicals amongst them have good reason to be quiet right now.
Even so they day after the Berlin attack an airport now being used to house Syrian refugees was raided by armed police in connexion to the attack. Even if it is just because of sympathisers.
Yes the threat is there, its a big threat and yet it will be statistically low on activity right now for reasons unrelated to it being a threat.
What you need to realise is that refugees in camps who are bored unemployed, distrusted and because of the rape gang culture which has inflamed Germans no longer welcome; these people are a hotbed for recruitment. furthermore they came from Syria, they arent naive converts who dont know what killing is like, many wll have seen it first hand, many many even have themselves killed for one reason or another. The major test is already done, these are life hardened people, and prime recruits for a radicalisation that is already rooted in them.
If you were an ISIS leader how would you use that resource, kick off in camps and get exposed, or quietly recruit build a web of radicals and contacts and then cause some real mess once your minions are wandering around Europe.
Refugees as a whole don't seem to hide any more murderers than the native population, indeed looking at France or the U.S. in recent years its very much the opposite.
Take the Liquid Bomb plot, they were all Uk citizens, and most were British born. They didn't consider themselves British in any way except legal rights, the entire community identifies themselves as Pakistani first by and large and only a portion consider themselves British and the radicalised seldom do except to blend in. The essential dynamic of the refugee/immigrant is still there due to non-integration. The delimiter tends to be sectarian, most Indian born or Indian ancestry UK citizens consider themselves British, even though any also consider themselves Indian.
'Refugees' per se are not the problem, as 'refugees' can come from anywhere. For example the UK has Brexit refugees right now, people entering the UK to be on this side when the break happens, and likewise there are Brexit refugees in Europe from the UK who consider themselves more European than British and consider the best time to move is now.
The difference is that most refugee patterns are not a problem and never were. The UK and France has large communities of African refugees and immigrants, and most consider themselves British or French, especially by the second generation, and very often with the first. Radicalised refugees are a problem, and they remain a problem long after they are no longer technically refugees. The Tunisian terrorists who caused the problems in France this year were technically French terrorists, most had French passports and had lived in France a long time. They were still identified and self identified as Tunisians, and had no intention of integrating as Frenchmen. This problem can last generations through non integration. Now some will be exceptions to the rule and because the numbers of known major attackers is still low we can see a wide variety of background, but there will be a commonality of what is behind them.
It is not surprising in the least that after the Berlin attack the Syrian refugee centre was raised even though the refugees are still locked inside for processing and not all have the liberty to move within Germany at will. They are tomorrows problem, even though they aren't driving lorries into people today doesn't mean there is no threat.
Edit: Just to comment on your CCTV and video post. Germany is very opposed to those kinds of surveillance due to its history, so they have very little CCTV to go off, this is why they arrested the Pakistani, because they got his description from a witness instead of any video evidence.
This is true, but there is more CCTV than you might think. Shop CCTV can see a lot more than what is in the ship if the windows are not shuttered, shop CCTV doesnt have the same stigma as public cameras, and German cities normally don't employ heavy shutters.
Germans also comply with the police and as a society are very precise, more so than most people groups. The police asked for mobile phone footage, selfies etc, and Berliners have responded with the timeliness and unity we see from Germans and makes them a strong people. Ask for help from the US and British public ad you might get it, might not. The Germans will cooperate en masse, its in their nature and a private of what happened will actually be easier to build from witnesses than our own police might find.
Germany doesn't need the surveillance culture the UK has, community is strong there. The Uk used to have that, but its gone now, and had to be replaced electronically.
Edit 2: The new suspect was apparently already known to intelligence agencies as having contacts with radicalized Muslims and trying to by a firearm from a police informant. Can we put this one on complacency too if it turn outs to be him, just like France?
Not really. The Germans are clearly on the case but Germany let in vast numbers of Syrian refugees and others. Perhaps the undercover intelligence officer was seeing so much his superiors didn't want to expose him for just this one fairly minor bust. Evidently they weren't being complacent, complacency would come if any other intelligence agency had forwarded specific intel and it had been ignored.
You cant watch suspects 24/7. Watch the video given it shows just how many spooks is needed to trail one suspect, its a lot of people.
Orlanth wrote: Women know that lonely walks in dark woods are not safe, but now have to add town squares and festivals as rape threat zones, entirely due to mass immigration.
You know, it's funny how similar "{place} is not safe" advice is given in the US, despite not having the same immigration level. In fact, over here it tends to be things like rich white college students from "good" families getting off with a ridiculously short sentence because it would be wrong to "ruin his promising future", white Christians blaming the victim for "consenting" to sex by flirting/wearing sexy clothes/etc, Catholic officials hiding child rapists because it would be bad PR to let them get caught, etc. It's almost like rape is a universal problem, not something exclusive to Muslim immigrants.
To make matters worse due to the progressives an their deep need for head in sand denial about the problems of integrating a culture which views women as inferior, infidel as infidel and considers rape just a fact of life in a male dominated world.
It sounds like you're describing certain right-wing Christians in the US. Is this the start of an argument that Christian immigrants should not be permitted, due to their misogynistic beliefs and the chance that they could do awful things?
Second it also it takes to time settle in and get some terror done. There is a good reason you see people long staying in Europe committing attacks, they have got settled and built a web of contacts and a powerbase. Those Tunisians had settled in.
This is just plain wrong. It takes very little time to settle in and get some terror done, if you're talking about the kind of thing like the attack in the OP. Renting a truck is easy. You just need a valid driver's license to rent a vehicle, and then off you go to smash into the nearest crowd of people. A terrorist coming into the country as a tourist could rent a car at the airport as soon as they arrive and drive straight to the massacre site. The most likely reason we don't see more attacks like this is that there are very, very few people willing to commit suicide in the process of murdering innocent victims.
The major test is already done, these are life hardened people, and prime recruits for a radicalisation that is already rooted in them.
So now we're talking about people who are candidates for radicalization, not people who are already terrorists in the process of executing a plot? Are you honestly suggesting that we exclude millions of potential immigrants because they might be convinced to become terrorists? This is paranoia, not a reasonable approach to security.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, it often happens like that, unfortunately. OTOH, the police will be on higher alert guarding places.
Has ther been often attack quick after another? Apart from trouble of coordinating wouldn't it be more effective to lull people into sense of safety and then boom
There very often have been clustered, co-ordinated attacks in Muslim countries, where it is easy for extremists to organised and support them.Attacks in western countries are apparently nearly all the doing of lone wolves or very small groups with little support. They may cluster due to news coverage provoking another nutter, or because clustering is simply natural. For instance here is a mini-cluster of an attack in Berlin and an attack in Ankara.
Orlanth wrote: Women know that lonely walks in dark woods are not safe, but now have to add town squares and festivals as rape threat zones, entirely due to mass immigration.
You know, it's funny how similar "{place} is not safe" advice is given in the US, despite not having the same immigration level. In fact, over here it tends to be things like rich white college students from "good" families getting off with a ridiculously short sentence because it would be wrong to "ruin his promising future", white Christians blaming the victim for "consenting" to sex by flirting/wearing sexy clothes/etc, Catholic officials hiding child rapists because it would be bad PR to let them get caught, etc. It's almost like rape is a universal problem, not something exclusive to Muslim immigrants.
America is not Germany, America has far more rough corners than western Europe does and it doesn't require a change in the demographic for some urban centres to have very nasty reputations. It has been a problem for a long time. Some parts of Detroit have been dangerous since the 60's. the large number of attacks on Cologne were a new phenomenon and got attention.
It is the first we hear of the rapists who blame women for flirty clothing by categorised as 'Christians'. It isn't the pulse of the US community of these offenses.
The Islamic rape gang problem in Europe right now has some weight behind it.
The nasty problems within the Roman Catholic church are being addressed, and in any case the Catholic church is vast, its has more employees than a mid sized European country has citizens and the Roman Catholic community is the largest human organisation in history. When the number of priests and church workers totals in the millions, it is inevitable that some are going to be criminals. This doesnt excuse the offences.
However Europe is not known for large scale rape culture, some parts of the middle east are different and they brought their values with them rather than adopted our own..
To make matters worse due to the progressives an their deep need for head in sand denial about the problems of integrating a culture which views women as inferior, infidel as infidel and considers rape just a fact of life in a male dominated world.
It sounds like you're describing certain right-wing Christians in the US. Is this the start of an argument that Christian immigrants should not be permitted, due to their misogynistic beliefs and the chance that they could do awful things?
Your known and self expressed hate on for Christians is getting the better of you, again.
Misogynists exists as individuals in all countries, it isn't a problem in mainstream Christianity at all, There is no reason to consider that Christianity poses this threat to the US outside of your warped imagination. The threat of Islamic extrmeism is well documented and the abuses growing heavy handed and make sudden impact on communities where this problem didn't not exist on this scale a priori.
Sweden had plenty of Christian but no rape culture, not it has massed Islamic immigration and a nasty evident rape culture the government doesn't know what to do about. No excuse to blame Christians there.
Second it also it takes to time settle in and get some terror done. There is a good reason you see people long staying in Europe committing attacks, they have got settled and built a web of contacts and a powerbase. Those Tunisians had settled in.
This is just plain wrong. It takes very little time to settle in and get some terror done, if you're talking about the kind of thing like the attack in the OP. Renting a truck is easy. You just need a valid driver's license to rent a vehicle, and then off you go to smash into the nearest crowd of people.
So why isnt it happening twice daily?
France run out of lorries? France run out of diesel fuel? France run out of Islamics? France run out of crowds? ISIS decided the French are ok now? All nope.
Its not as easy as you assume.
A terrorist coming into the country as a tourist could rent a car at the airport as soon as they arrive and drive straight to the massacre site. The most likely reason we don't see more attacks like this is that there are very, very few people willing to commit suicide in the process of murdering innocent victims.
However the sympathies are there, and the dogma is there, radicalisation takes time.
Also the driver in the Berlin attack didnt commit suicide, he got away. So your assumption holds no logic.
Are you honestly suggesting that we exclude millions of potential immigrants because they might be convinced to become terrorists? This is paranoia, not a reasonable approach to security.
That hasn't been the conclusion drawn, its not the concept being duscussed. The concept is that massed Syrian immigration has placed a burden on the security services which has consequntly left them vulnerable. If you read plain text more and assumed less you might be able to see this. I was clear enough. So clear in fact I even bullet pointed it.
However to answer your question. What I would honestly suggest is:
1. Western society recognises at public and government level that Islamic terrorism is an issue and Islamic non integration is an issue and it requires concessions from the Moslem community that it will abide by our values.
2. Moslem communities must accept our way of life is not negotiable. If they want to live under sharia or want to make their new home nation a Moslem state they need to live elsewhere. If they come to Europe it is understand that they live under our secular values. Which religious communities within Europe already do.
Orlanth wrote: America is not Germany, America has far more rough corners than western Europe does and it doesn't require a change in the demographic for some urban centres to have very nasty reputations. It has been a problem for a long time. Some parts of Detroit have been dangerous since the 60's. the large number of attacks on Cologne were a new phenomenon and got attention.
I'm not talking about extreme situations like the worst parts of Detroit, I'm talking about things like "don't be alone in a parking lot at night", which happens all over the US. And the hypothetical rapist in this scenario is not a Muslim immigrant.
It is the first we hear of the rapists who blame women for flirty clothing by categorised as 'Christians'. It isn't the pulse of the US community of these offenses.
I didn't say the rapists were Christians, I said the people excusing the rapists were Christians. It may not be the pulse of the US community, but "rape all the children you want" is not the pulse of the Muslim community.
The nasty problems within the Roman Catholic church are being addressed, and in any case the Catholic church is vast, its has more employees than a mid sized European country has citizens and the Roman Catholic community is the largest human organisation in history. When the number of priests and church workers totals in the millions, it is inevitable that some are going to be criminals. This doesnt excuse the offences.
The issue is not that the rapes happened. As you said, an organization that size is going to have criminals get in. The issue is that the priests who raped children were quietly covered up, victims were bribed to stay silent, etc. This was done by church leadership knowing perfectly well what was going on, and making a conscious decision to hide the crimes to protect the church's image. This is an incredibly awful thing, and yet Muslim immigrants had nothing to do with it.
Misogynists exists as individuals in all countries, it isn't a problem in mainstream Christianity at all
I didn't say mainstream Christianity, I said certain right-wing Christians. I acknowledge that the people I'm thinking about are not a majority of Christians, but the people who commit violent crimes in the name of god are not the majority of Muslims. If you get to blame all Muslims and treat them with suspicion because a minority do something awful then Christians get the full blame for every extremist Christian doing or saying something awful.
There is no reason to consider that Christianity poses this threat to the US outside of your warped imagination.
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. Right-wing Christianity does pose a threat to the US. Remember that the second-place finisher in the republican primaries was Cruz, who was happy to appear on stage at an event where the organizer was talking about how the penalty for homosexuality is death (but you shouldn't murder gay people, that's god's job) and accept the organizer's endorsement. Christians may not be a threat as terrorists, but they are still a threat. And I'll also point out that Muslim terrorists are not a threat to the survival of a nation as a whole. Killing a few people by running them over with a truck is, in the context of the total deaths each year, a rounding error. The nation will survive.
So why isnt it happening twice daily?
France run out of lorries? France run out of diesel fuel? France run out of Islamics? France run out of crowds? ISIS decided the French are ok now? All nope.
Its not as easy as you assume.
As I said, the most likely reason that it isn't happening is that terrorists are a tiny, tiny minority.
As for it not being that easy, sorry, but it's indisputable fact that it's easy. If you have a driver's license and a credit card you can rent a truck sufficient to run over people and kill them. No special training, no special licenses, just show up at the rental place with some money and sign the contract. Anyone who wants to commit a similar attack could do so with a trivial amount of effort. The inescapable conclusion here is that there are hardly any people who are willing to do it.
Also the driver in the Berlin attack didnt commit suicide, he got away. So your assumption holds no logic.
This is a rare exception to the rule. Usually in cases like this the attacker commits suicide as the police are closing in and capture is inevitable, or goes down shooting rather than being taken alive. And in countries with the death penalty you will probably be executed for your crimes. If you commit mass murder you should expect to die, and even the best-case scenario is probably spending the rest of your life in prison.
1. Western society recognises at public and government level that Islamic terrorism is an issue and Islamic non integration is an issue and it requires concessions from the Moslem community that it will abide by our values.
2. Moslem communities must accept our way of life is not negotiable. If they want to live under sharia or want to make their new home nation a Moslem state they need to live elsewhere. If they come to Europe it is understand that they live under our secular values. Which religious communities within Europe already do.
Unacceptable. You can't force people to "integrate", and you can't force people to "abide by our values" outside of following all relevant laws. This is a blatant attack on individual freedoms, and there is absolutely no way you would tolerate it if someone else decided that your culture was the one that had to be "integrated" and changed to satisfy others.
Unacceptable. You can't force people to "integrate", and you can't force people to "abide by our values" outside of following all relevant laws. This is a blatant attack on individual freedoms, and there is absolutely no way you would tolerate it if someone else decided that your culture was the one that had to be "integrated" and changed to satisfy others.
I’m sorry, but this is totally unacceptable. If someone immigrates to a country, it is their responsibility to integrate into that nation’s society. This is 100% non-negotiable. A society has absolutely no responsibility to accept just anyone and everyone who wants to enter. This is how a society stays alive and prevents parallel societies from forming, and social instability that would develop as a result. As someone living in a western nation, I do not want my society’s values of secularism, gender equality and democracy to be eroded. And yes, if I were to move to a different country, I would do my best to integrate into their culture, out of respect if nothing else. Immigration without assimilation is just an invasion. The fate of the Native Americans is a good example of immigration without careful integration.
Also I don’t mean to be rude, but I genuinely find your stance on this to be disturbing. I can’t understand why someone living in the west (I assume you are living in USA), and who appears educated would make the statement that you did. This may be an area where American and European culture differs.
chochky wrote: If someone immigrates to a country, it is their responsibility to integrate into that nation’s society.
Define "integrate". And do so in a way that can be used to write a law for who is allowed to stay. Make sure your definition is completely objective and unambiguous so that it can be applied without any personal bias by the person making the decision. And make sure it is a test that can be applied to a person already living in the country, since a mere promise of "sure, I'll integrate" on entering means nothing. Once you have failed to do this you can take back everything you said.
As someone living in a western nation, I do not want my society’s values of secularism, gender equality and democracy to be eroded.
Then defend them by persuading people that you are right, electing people who will protect the relevant legal rights, etc. Ensure that things like separation of church and state are in your constitution (or whatever equivalent you have), and any laws conflicting with those principles can be struck down. Your value of "democracy" is worthless if includes the state deciding what is an acceptable belief to hold or express, and removing anyone who doesn't agree. That isn't democracy, it's tyranny.
I can’t understand why someone living in the west (I assume you are living in USA), and who appears educated would make the statement that you did.
Because I value the concept of individual rights and I don't like the idea of the state getting the right to decide if someone has "integrated" sufficiently or banning people from the country based on their political beliefs. Unlike you I understand how such a law would be incredibly easy to abuse, and be little more than turning the majority's biases into law.
On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France.
You point is that refuges are statistically nota threat and also are not seen to be responsible for actioned attacks and very few terrorist infiltrators have been detected amongsrt the large influx of Syrian refugees. So in your opinion it is unwelcoming and unhelpful to focus on them, If that was your point, then I understood it.
My point was that you can't just handwave other countries as complacent, but then blast Germany cause it had to be all the refugees clogging up the system. In Germany it was complacency too in part as I will explain at the end.
1. There has been an influx of 1.1 mil refugees into Germany, with only 4 people who actually decided to commit an attack.
2. IS has attempted to infiltrate refugees, but its been over two years since the start of the refugee crisis and Berlin is the first time that they have managed to kill more than one person in Germany. Either the people they tried to send over are grossly incompetent, or more likely they have been able to recruit them here due to living conditions.
The relevant point to draw from this is that the refugee population is not anymore dangerous or even less dangerous than the radicalized nationals, who are even now suspected of hiding the attacker in Berlin, possibly also enabling him access to a firearm.
Ok first however you cut it whether recent arrival or due to Moslems born in the EU this entire problem is imported. Jihadism is imported from the Islamic world, and arrives as a side effect of unintegrated Islamic culture in Europe. Europe has been exposed to Islam for a very long time, but what is happening now is new and it the result of unintegrated immigrant cultures from the Islamic world.
Second the statistic of 1.1 million refugees yielding only four known terrorists who have committed an attack is a very easy sounding statistic. So there isnt a problem them?
Sorry wrong.
1. Four is four too many. Four is also a lot, not a little Take any other ethnic people group migrating to or within Europe you would likely not have as many. And remember this is an active threat. If an Irish team gets into Europe and fans come to the match it is not unlikely that someone in the crowd had connections to the sectarisnism in the Troubles, but they aren't likely active and aren't a threat to Germany anyway. I doubt they would need special attention, more then football fan normally get.
2. Approximately one in a quarter of a million refugees is a terrorist who has known to have already committed an attack. How many more are committed terrorists yet to have done so? We don't have a figure for that, and I suspect we would be alarmed if we had. How many trained sleepers. Actioned terrorists are a relatively small percentage of the whole. Most of those people will be in fact deserters from ISIS or similar causes, Terrorism 101 teaches you to send terrorists with clean hands into the target country, as they are less likely to be spotted . You have to know of them from their sympathies and their training not their activities.
Then you have on top of this a large number of sympathisers who have done nothing wrong yet, but have leanings towards ISIS and may be persuaded to sign up when in Europe.
3. The fact that we know know there were four means that the security services were right to investigate. They found four on the first pass through the data/ How many have they missed? Do they need another look? Also you have to look at groups of people if refugee A B and C come to Munchen and settle in together nothing happens, but when their friend D arrives they all get back into bad habits.
You don't need many instigators to radicalise an inherently part radicalised community. So its not just ne pass through the data. I will admit that now they have documentation this will be easier.
4. The fact that we know there were four means that the whole 1.1 million needed to be sifted, largely they arrived without documentation and without dossiers from native security services assessing their threat, which a migrant from within the EU will have. You will need to assemble a life history of each and every one to find those four. If the number was more scary, like a hundred known terrorists the wokload would still be essentially the same, though more double checking and deeper cross-referencing will be needed. Its an enormous amount of work and would be very time consuming personnel consuming and distracting for those who need to commit their time to protecting Germany from terror.
And in the 70's and 80's we had left wing socialist violence in Europe, certainly a side effect of large non-integrated socialist cultures in Europe The leading cause for homegrown radicalization is the inability and difficulty that second or third generation immigrants have in functioning in society, there are still issues of racism towards employment and less viable chances overall in life. These people radicalize cause they see it as there only way out and are in one way or another desperate, not because they are not integrated. Jihadism is just another side effect of a large political stream of thought such as socialism or nationalism. We have to combat it, but the way isn't to treat all Muslims as fifth columnists.
IDK why you think I'm wrong as the evidence so far is stacked against you.
1. Four is too many. Four is also smaller than the amount of murderers nationals bring forth that is too many. Again you can provide me the numbers if it is too high amongst that section of the population right? Demonstrate that the refugees are out of proportion. Going of homicide statistics proves you wrong though. And really we shouldn't compare the Irish from the troubles to a war zone with daily airstrikes, poison gas attacks and years of siege, one is more likely to bring out a higher number of psychological issues than the other.
2. In two years its been four people! Meanwhile almost 1600 Germans have murdered someone else. The better have a whole army biding their time to make up for their efforts so far. And we have a good idea how many are committed terrorists, just look at the nationals list, Germany had several hundred nationals going abroad to fight who are now returning. Your terrorism 101 is also a tad outdated. The most successful terrorist attacks have all been committed by trained terrorists. So far you are just speculating about numbers that isn't in any way supported by the evidence. When will we see this massive increase in attacks? If it is as easy as stealing a truck, why isn't this a weekly occurrence?
3. Of course it means they were right to investigate, it's what they exist for. But based of those statistics either they are doing a good job or there just aren't that many. Of course this could change later with radicalization, but that is an argument to help them to the best of our abilities, to make sure they don't have a need to fall back into bad habits.
4. The fact that 800 Germans get murdered by fellow Germans each year means we should divert all our efforts from refugees to the native population. I mean 800! What is 4 compared to that? Lets not pretend four is somehow a big number, each one is one too many sure. But there is just a limit to prevention and we don't know when that limit has been reached. Eventually the amount of money we throw at a problem will be inconsistent with the size of the problem.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them.
No you cant stop them all, but you can try and in doing so stop most. This was why the IRA found it very difficult to operate in the latter half of the Troubles. It wasn't for lack of funding or commitment.
You don't see much about the successes:
Let me remind you that neither France or the U.S. has masses of refugees come in as a consequence of the refugee crisis. You can try to handwave this away as complacency, but it is a curious occurrence is it not?
French complacency is a separate issue. Its a problem with the French police at just about any time. Getting international cooperation from the French police and not just from the UK (though there might be special love there) is a noted problem. They are known to be laid back, they are known to drop the ball. France is known as an easy target, it has that rep. That rep extends to the terror networks. Terrorists think, right or wrong, that is is extremely hard to enter Israel undetected, they fear the Israeli security services. That know the Uk is easy to enter and its politics are a soft touch, but they also believe in the rep of the UK security services and expect to be caught unless they act very carefully. The NSA and FBI have similar reps. France has a rep of being sleepy and easy to attack, so they get targeted.
If both those countries drop the ball once in a while, why does it have to be refugees for Germany? Why can't Germany just drop the ball, as it is starting to look like. Yet even Isreal, with its massive investment had great trouble with the second Intifada or just last year with loners stabbing or running over people. There is a limit to what you can prevent. Maybe the four in Germany just prevent that limit to an extent.
Again, on the contrary, politicians and parties such as those of Wilders in my country or the AfD in Germany would like us to believe that refugees are dangerous murderers, or as you say hiding them.
No. Even Wilders doenst say that, neither does the AfD. They highlight Islamic refugees. That is the first distinction.
Second there is a case to answer for and many people in Europe are waking up to it. Women know that lonely walks in dark woods are not safe, but now have to add town squares and festivals as rape threat zones, entirely due to mass immigration. That is the hard reality, and one progressives repeatedly gloss over or try to dismiss with false statistics.
Yes four in a million actively known prior terrorists appears to be a little, but its a lot. Yes immigrant crime appears to be a little compared to national reported crime statistics, but it shows an alarming rise. Also like in Sweden a lot of these crimes are being deliberately ignored or the attackers ethnicity glossed over to maintain the rosy statistics that all is well.
Wilders et al have a point, but defending that point is not my intention here. My main problem with those who are actively complaining about Islamic extremism and lack of cultural integration is that it has been left to the alt-right to make comment as mainstream politicians refused to do so.
The UK had that problem, thankfully the word is had. New Labour allowed the Islamification of Birmingham primary schools and rape gangs on Rotherham because they didn't want to upset the unity zeitgeist. Cameron had the balls to admit there was a problem, yes parts of the Islamic minority in the UK had been getting away with horrendous abuses, it wasn't an alt-right scare story, and he was going to take action on it. Cameron moved very swiftly on the radicalised schools in 2010 shortly after he took power. He also dealt with the rape gangs in Rotherham. The Tories have since had problems because the full story is a powder keg even they had had to keep the lid on - Notably that to keep up the national rhetroic of community cohesion the parents of girls who were abducted had been censured by the police for being racist for complaining about their childrens rapes. One horrible case of a father who has arrested for a breach of the peace because he wanted to rescue his daughter from a house where she was being raped by a gang of Moslem men. Reportedly the police still did nothing to help the child. The head of the public inquiry into this mess have been changed several times, and I think the government is trying to find a way to wind it up because while the Tories are willing to stop the abuse, unlike Labour, they are not willing to let the public know how bad it had got because it would provide ammunition to anti-Islamic groups.
At least the rapists were put on trial quietly and are in prison now with long sentences, and the Islamic local community knows that their access to R&R at the expense of British children has been removed.
Crap like that is what a society must do if it want to maintain the illusion that all is well and mas Islamic non-integration is not a problem. If you don't like the AfD then mainstream not alt-right polticians need to step up admit that there is a case to answer for and take responsibility. German women are not meat puppets, or at least shouldn't be. And no its not a 'tiny minority' of refugees from Islamic cultures who think they are, its a belief shared by lots of people which is why such attacks are often by large gangs.
The AfD blamed this attack on Merkel for letting the refugees in. If this isn't a clear cut case for AfD thinks refugees=terrorists=dead Germans=blame Merkel for refugees I don't know what is. Blaming just the Muslims isn't any better, it just makes you more racist, the ones most open to radicalization are some of the most secularized Muslims.
Again with these rumours, I qoute:
Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.) Furthermore, according to Deutsche Welle’s analysis of the report, the number of offenses increased in the first half of 2015 but “stagnated” in the second half, precisely when most of the refugees were arriving and the rumor mill switched into overdrive. And although sexual offenses account for over 25 percent of the rumors on the Hoaxmap, the BKA data showed that only 1 percent of refugee-related crimes fell into the sexual offense category.
Only 1% of refugee crimes, no crimes committed by refugees are higher relatively to the German population. Give me your hard facts, here is my police report, I sure hope you have a good one, damn those progressives and their false police statistics! And before you say 'oh but its just reported less', so is that of the native population I say in advance, until you can prove otherwise us progressives are going to sit in this corner on these hard 'false' facts.
The rest of it is basically working on integration. European countries have certainly dropped the ball on that one with their live and let live attitude. We need more government programs to help these people educate themselves, learn the language and integrate. It is a two way street and both sides have done less than they are supposed to. I mean here we make immigrants pay to learn Dutch. That's insane, these people have very little money as its is and now we want them to pay to learn Dutch!
Besides the jobs will come. In the future Germany will need these kinds of people. If you think German nationals get drowned out now, in 2050 the population is projected to decline by 20 million to 60 million. Demographically Muslims already there will take up a bigger part without refugees. You will need these people to prevent the rapid aging that will happen soon in Europe.
The AfD, Front National and Wilders all lie based on false statistics. These people don't have the answers, they are just the alt-right or breitbart of political parties. We tried having Wilders involved in government and he knew gak all, these are not coherent parties, they are foreigners bad! Ethnic (christian) nationals gud!
I think Peregrine is helping out this part nicely.
Statistics have to be shown to combat false perceptions of insecurity. Of course immigration and refugee policy should be a separate discussion, but each and every time people want to link immigration or refugees to terrorism out come the statistics to prove those people wrong.
Actually your statisitcs only appear t prove them wrong. They prove them right. Four detected known ex-terrorists in an influx of a million recent refugees is quite a bit, it is indicative that ISIS have tried to infiltrate. You have your iceberg dead ahead. How much of it dont you see.
Its a bit like spinning this:
"Good news patient we have looked at your blood sample and only found four blood cells showing signs of HIV."
What you are missing is that unlike previous influxes of immigration it is on the terms of the immigrant. Germany has welcomed Moslem migrants for generations and while they have had some problems this is normal in any multi-cultural society. But the nation was still predominantly German. Suddenly refugees means a whole community imported wholecloth, which means it comes with its own societal values attached. To make matters worse due to the progressives an their deep need for head in sand denial about the problems of integrating a culture which views women as inferior, infidel as infidel and considers rape just a fact of life in a male dominated world.
So you have a culture which radical islamics have contempt for and see as weak, which encourages them. And you give them good reason to come to that assessment. Radical clerics believe not unrealistically that they can dominate Europe, they are strong in their beliefs European culture is weak on ours and they see the frequent demonstration of that as blood in the water.
I think they are wrong, but not due to progressives but because of the backlash which is inevitable when the concerns become mainstream and can no longer be written off as alt-right scares. The mainstream right can then deal with the issues with public blessing and the progressive left will have to shut up for once, and they will because much of the anger will be directed at them and the public base of support for progressives will evaporate. It need not end up in an alt-right hell, it might yet end up in a massive showdown between radical Islam and the European majority though, and the long it is left before leaders step up the worse and bloodier it will be.
Its a lose lose, but it need not have happened if progressives had not got in the way and insisted that we live in a multi-culutral utopia spoiled by the alt-right and a tiny handful of religous extremists.
Anyway what has actually changed is that you have whole communities imported, Which means you don have the old trickle of immigrants, mostly from Turkey, who get jobs in the lucrative German building trade. You have whole columns of refugees arriving with no jobs for them. They are also settled as whole communities, and when I mean that I don't necessarily mean in the intigrated sense. The only ones who will have integration are those who are extended families and those who have common cause.
Again with the empty rhetoric. Give me something to work on, evidence the Iceberg is covered in refugee infiltrators. Non of the facts are on your side.
You're spinning it a bit like this. 800 Germans have HIV, but these 4 refugees have it too, better deport them all because the rest of them might have it too!
I feel like were just repeating the last point so my responses have all been laid out there.
If the last few years have shown us anything, it is better to be afraid of your neighbour than the Syrian in the detention center.
So much wrong with this statement.
No. First its unlikely your neighbour if taken from the German population as a whole excepting only Syrian refugees is a problem. skewed statistics are skewed. Germany is one of the safer places to live in Europe, but it is getting worse, and notably some types of offense,like rape are getting more prevalent and this is being connected to immigration due to witness reports.
Second it also it takes to time settle in and get some terror done. There is a good reason you see people long staying in Europe committing attacks, they have got settled and built a web of contacts and a powerbase. Those Tunisians had settled in.
Third many of the Syrian refugees are in camps at the moment, that is a bad time to kick off, they are well monitored.
Fourth they are being processed and vetted, so the radicals amongst them have good reason to be quiet right now.
Even so they day after the Berlin attack an airport now being used to house Syrian refugees was raided by armed police in connexion to the attack. Even if it is just because of sympathisers.
Yes the threat is there, its a big threat and yet it will be statistically low on activity right now for reasons unrelated to it being a threat.
What you need to realise is that refugees in camps who are bored unemployed, distrusted and because of the rape gang culture which has inflamed Germans no longer welcome; these people are a hotbed for recruitment. furthermore they came from Syria, they arent naive converts who dont know what killing is like, many wll have seen it first hand, many many even have themselves killed for one reason or another. The major test is already done, these are life hardened people, and prime recruits for a radicalisation that is already rooted in them.
If you were an ISIS leader how would you use that resource, kick off in camps and get exposed, or quietly recruit build a web of radicals and contacts and then cause some real mess once your minions are wandering around Europe.
Again you have nothing to back up your claims. Refugee crime rate is not even relatively higher than that of the native population. How are statistics skewed, we have it on record that there is no increase in reports, you're just grasping at straws saying but they could be, but then so could those of the native pop. You mean time to settle in as in second and third generation? If so why refuse all refugees? Because 0.01% of their children might one day turn evil? We should let 1.1 mil people rot because of that chance?? We have had refugees from the Middle-East and Jihadism since the 70's yet it has never been an enormous problem, what makes people believe its going to be one now?
Again, all rhetoric, nothing to back it up with. Police are following leads on one refugee suspect, not shaking down all refugees.
Refugees as a whole don't seem to hide any more murderers than the native population, indeed looking at France or the U.S. in recent years its very much the opposite.
Take the Liquid Bomb plot, they were all Uk citizens, and most were British born. They didn't consider themselves British in any way except legal rights, the entire community identifies themselves as Pakistani first by and large and only a portion consider themselves British and the radicalised seldom do except to blend in. The essential dynamic of the refugee/immigrant is still there due to non-integration. The delimiter tends to be sectarian, most Indian born or Indian ancestry UK citizens consider themselves British, even though any also consider themselves Indian.
'Refugees' per se are not the problem, as 'refugees' can come from anywhere. For example the UK has Brexit refugees right now, people entering the UK to be on this side when the break happens, and likewise there are Brexit refugees in Europe from the UK who consider themselves more European than British and consider the best time to move is now.
The difference is that most refugee patterns are not a problem and never were. The UK and France has large communities of African refugees and immigrants, and most consider themselves British or French, especially by the second generation, and very often with the first. Radicalised refugees are a problem, and they remain a problem long after they are no longer technically refugees. The Tunisian terrorists who caused the problems in France this year were technically French terrorists, most had French passports and had lived in France a long time. They were still identified and self identified as Tunisians, and had no intention of integrating as Frenchmen. This problem can last generations through non integration. Now some will be exceptions to the rule and because the numbers of known major attackers is still low we can see a wide variety of background, but there will be a commonality of what is behind them.
It is not surprising in the least that after the Berlin attack the Syrian refugee centre was raised even though the refugees are still locked inside for processing and not all have the liberty to move within Germany at will. They are tomorrows problem, even though they aren't driving lorries into people today doesn't mean there is no threat.
It does sectarian for one reason, it's just to outlet for all the problems they encounter, their justification, most of these young men weren't strict Muslims (drinking, sex, eating pork) to begin with but Radical Islam is their outlet for frustration just like communism used to be. In the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's we had Indonesians from our former colony commting terror attacks to protest there treatment, they were in majority christian. It is almost like colonizing someone, then having a massive transplantation of an entirely different cultural and ethnic group has some effect if not managed properly. All European nations are guilty of doing less than they should have done to integrate these people, and of course some of the blame should rest on those that are unwilling as well. Yet the amount that goes on and commits these kind of attacks is tiny and not in any way representative of these communities. We have blown this issue out of proportion because it seems very scary to us that we can just be killed by a random angry person. Yet the chance of dying in a car accident is much higher but it doesn't make people less hesitant to drive a car. Why should we let 1.1 million people suffer and possibly die to save 14? Yes 14 is a tragic number but so is 3400 traffic deaths. Were pretending this is some massive problem just biding its time and were all going Admiral Ackbar. Again, statistics show that, no Ackbar, its not a trap, that really is just a moon and not deathstar 2.0.
Edit: Just to comment on your CCTV and video post. Germany is very opposed to those kinds of surveillance due to its history, so they have very little CCTV to go off, this is why they arrested the Pakistani, because they got his description from a witness instead of any video evidence.
This is true, but there is more CCTV than you might think. Shop CCTV can see a lot more than what is in the ship if the windows are not shuttered, shop CCTV doesnt have the same stigma as public cameras, and German cities normally don't employ heavy shutters.
Germans also comply with the police and as a society are very precise, more so than most people groups. The police asked for mobile phone footage, selfies etc, and Berliners have responded with the timeliness and unity we see from Germans and makes them a strong people. Ask for help from the US and British public ad you might get it, might not. The Germans will cooperate en masse, its in their nature and a private of what happened will actually be easier to build from witnesses than our own police might find.
Germany doesn't need the surveillance culture the UK has, community is strong there. The Uk used to have that, but its gone now, and had to be replaced electronically.
Sure, but I was just mentioning that they did not seem to have a good video of the attacker this time as they arrested the Pakistani first and only almost two days later figured out that it might have been someone else. That's the point I was referring to in this case, apologies if that was unclear.
Edit 2: The new suspect was apparently already known to intelligence agencies as having contacts with radicalized Muslims and trying to by a firearm from a police informant. Can we put this one on complacency too if it turn outs to be him, just like France?
Not really. The Germans are clearly on the case but Germany let in vast numbers of Syrian refugees and others. Perhaps the undercover intelligence officer was seeing so much his superiors didn't want to expose him for just this one fairly minor bust. Evidently they weren't being complacent, complacency would come if any other intelligence agency had forwarded specific intel and it had been ignored.
You cant watch suspects 24/7. Watch the video given it shows just how many spooks is needed to trail one suspect, its a lot of people.
In this case he left his ID in the truck (apparently). Further information we have gotten is that he looked and inquired into ways to make explosives and sought out IS online. That combined with the firearm sure makes it seem like the intelligence agencies dropped the ball. To make it even worse, he was already supposed to have been deported back to Tunisia but they were unable to. So here we have a man who was clearly looking at a way to attack Germans and acting on this in front of the police, that would assuredly be deported back to Tunisia, perhaps making him even more desperate or rushed to commit this attack, yet he was still walking around as a free man. If that isn't a whole heap of ineptitude and complacency I don't know what is!
chochky wrote: If someone immigrates to a country, it is their responsibility to integrate into that nation’s society.
Define "integrate". And do so in a way that can be used to write a law for who is allowed to stay. Make sure your definition is completely objective and unambiguous so that it can be applied without any personal bias by the person making the decision. And make sure it is a test that can be applied to a person already living in the country, since a mere promise of "sure, I'll integrate" on entering means nothing. Once you have failed to do this you can take back everything you said.
Just to jump in with Peregrine. This is laughably easy. Just tell a refugee who has no money, job, education applicable to your country, connections or language skill to 'educate and integrate yo self'. It is the nation who should ensure these people get the opportunity and the support to do so. If you offer all the help to the best of your nation's ability and they say no, sure maybe they can't stay, but culture or religion shouldn't be one of the reasons to say no. The luck of the drawer on who's V we fall out off sure makes it easy to judge those who fell out of a much less fortunate one.
chochky wrote: As someone living in a western nation, I do not want my society’s values of secularism, gender equality and democracy to be eroded.
Then defend them by persuading people that you are right, electing people who will protect the relevant legal rights, etc. Ensure that things like separation of church and state are in your constitution (or whatever equivalent you have), and any laws conflicting with those principles can be struck down. Your value of "democracy" is worthless if includes the state deciding what is an acceptable belief to hold or express, and removing anyone who doesn't agree. That isn't democracy, it's tyranny.
And stop fear-mongering about immigrants, giving idiotic political parties a voice and polarizing these people. People sure love to adopt the values of the people that demonize them and want to deport them all once their in power. Having 1/3rd of your native population supporting those parties will do nothing for those values as its either: they are Muslims (not a very secular argument), gender equality (lets make up facts of how many immigrants rape women that is totally untrue!) and democracy (giving rise to some of the most right wing demagogy we have seen in decades). I fear more for my own native population of which 1/3rd feels the need to vote on Wilders (who threatens 2/3 of your values) than all those Muslims and immigrants who vote for the centrist social party. Front National or the AfD aren't that different in that regard. Lets not blow this problem out of proportion lest it become the abyss gazing back into you. I'll let you in on a little secret. We have a party in parliament that until a year ago didn't allow women in the party and is pro kitchen type stuff, with a great big helping of a particular religious book inspiring their program. I'll let you in on another one, Muslims don't have a party like that in our parliament.
chochky wrote: I can’t understand why someone living in the west (I assume you are living in USA), and who appears educated would make the statement that you did.
Because I value the concept of individual rights and I don't like the idea of the state getting the right to decide if someone has "integrated" sufficiently or banning people from the country based on their political beliefs. Unlike you I understand how such a law would be incredibly easy to abuse, and be little more than turning the majority's biases into law.
Exalted.
Edit: I feel the need to put this at the end of my post, for those who don't want to read it, but it is very important to note this part.
Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.) Furthermore, according to Deutsche Welle’s analysis of the report, the number of offenses increased in the first half of 2015 but “stagnated” in the second half, precisely when most of the refugees were arriving and the rumor mill switched into overdrive. And although sexual offenses account for over 25 percent of the rumors on the Hoaxmap, the BKA data showed that only 1 percent of refugee-related crimes fell into the sexual offense category.
Neither do I as it completely fails to take into account the huge cultural significance that the Crusades had in the Islamic world.
It completely does take into account that the crusades happened and had a significant impact on the Islamic world, no one argued against this in the first place so its strange you would claim this indisputable fact is being ignored.
The part you don't like is that it also takes into account the cultural impact on Europe from aggressive middle eastern led (and later islamic led) invasions, which were in fact, longer lasting, and farther reaching in their conquest then the crusades by a large margin. Not to mention the "cultural impact" of having ME culture try to wipe various European cultures off the map for the last 2500 years or so.
Or are you really going to argue that the war of Marathon, the Ionian wars ,the war of Thermopylae, all the way up to the moors conquering Spain, or the ottoman empire's attempted expansion into Europe are not acts of "cultural significance" in Europe that might have provoked a response in kind?
Neither do I as it completely fails to take into account the huge cultural significance that the Crusades had in the Islamic world.
It completely does take into account that the crusades happened and had a significant impact on the Islamic world.
The part you don't like is that it also takes into account the cultural impact on Europe from aggressive middle eastern led (and later islamic led) invasions, which were in fact, longer lasting, and farther reaching in their conquest then the crusades by a large margin. Not to mention the "cultural impact" of having ME culture try to wipe various European cultures off the map for the last 2500 years or so.
Or are you really going to argue that the war of Marathon, the Ionian wars ,the war of Thermopylae, all the way up to the moors conquering Spain are not acts of "cultural significance" in Europe that might have provoked a response in kind?
Lets not pretend both sides don't like a good war or genocide once in a while. All nations and cultures have had their shameful moments.
But just for fun. Lydian attack on the Persians. Spartans in Asia Minor, Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Reconquista. What are we playing, arbitrary geographical lines?
Neither do I as it completely fails to take into account the huge cultural significance that the Crusades had in the Islamic world.
It completely does take into account that the crusades happened and had a significant impact on the Islamic world.
The part you don't like is that it also takes into account the cultural impact on Europe from aggressive middle eastern led (and later islamic led) invasions, which were in fact, longer lasting, and farther reaching in their conquest then the crusades by a large margin. Not to mention the "cultural impact" of having ME culture try to wipe various European cultures off the map for the last 2500 years or so.
Or are you really going to argue that the war of Marathon, the Ionian wars ,the war of Thermopylae, all the way up to the moors conquering Spain are not acts of "cultural significance" in Europe that might have provoked a response in kind?
Lets not pretend both sides don't like a good war or genocide once in a while. All nations and cultures have had their shameful moments.
But just for fun. Lydian attack on the Persians. Spartans in Asia Minor, Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Reconquista. What are we playing, arbitrary geographical lines?
Why on Earth would you accuse me of pretending otherwise?
I never alluded otherwise or pretended otherwise, I flat out said it was both sides fault earlier "Its almost as if this planets history is one of multiple civilizations clashing, doing horrible things to one another in the process, waxing and waning in power over one another, where the spoils go to the victor for as long as they can hold it. "
I love how rape apparently wasn't a problem before the refugee crisis. Honestly, go to any moderately popular club on a Friday night and it'd be easy to find people who don't know how to behave towards other human beings.
Neither do I as it completely fails to take into account the huge cultural significance that the Crusades had in the Islamic world.
It completely does take into account that the crusades happened and had a significant impact on the Islamic world.
The part you don't like is that it also takes into account the cultural impact on Europe from aggressive middle eastern led (and later islamic led) invasions, which were in fact, longer lasting, and farther reaching in their conquest then the crusades by a large margin. Not to mention the "cultural impact" of having ME culture try to wipe various European cultures off the map for the last 2500 years or so.
Or are you really going to argue that the war of Marathon, the Ionian wars ,the war of Thermopylae, all the way up to the moors conquering Spain are not acts of "cultural significance" in Europe that might have provoked a response in kind?
Lets not pretend both sides don't like a good war or genocide once in a while. All nations and cultures have had their shameful moments.
But just for fun. Lydian attack on the Persians. Spartans in Asia Minor, Alexander the Great, the Romans, the Reconquista. What are we playing, arbitrary geographical lines?
Why on Earth would you accuse me of pretending otherwise?
I never alluded otherwise or pretended otherwise, I flat out said it was both sides fault earlier "Its almost as if this planets history is one of multiple civilizations clashing, doing horrible things to one another in the process, waxing and waning in power over one another, where the spoils go to the victor for as long as they can hold it. "
Sorry if you thought it was directed at you personally, it was adressed at the tangent as a whole in this topic.
Its all about politics of empire and power. If they wouldn't use religion they would use nationalism, if they wouldn't use nationalism it would be communism etc etc. Religion is a tool, not the reason.
The Crusades were a bit of a shock, because Europeans sailed or walked half way around the world just to occupy some third rate piece of real estate in the middle of a desert. Its more understandable if its your neighbour, but the guy you havent ever met before comes off as a tad unprovoked. We in Western Europe mostly forgot about the Middle Eastern attempt as we have had the upper hand for the best part of 500 years. But you can see in countries like Russia-Germany and Greece-Turkey that past conflicts still rage. Yet we have been very active over there. Playing the blame game doesn't go anywhere though, as major Jihadist groups have been a response to our presence in the region, however unjustified founding a jihadist group might seem it makes perfect sense to those who want power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I love how rape apparently wasn't a problem before the refugee crisis. Honestly, go to any moderately popular club on a Friday night and it'd be easy to find people who don't know how to behave towards other human beings.
Well those darn refugees made us talk about it. I remember the quiet times before all the refugees when we just didn't talk about rape. Weren't those the days (que nostalgic sigh)...
Unacceptable. You can't force people to "integrate", and you can't force people to "abide by our values" outside of following all relevant laws. This is a blatant attack on individual freedoms, and there is absolutely no way you would tolerate it if someone else decided that your culture was the one that had to be "integrated" and changed to satisfy others.
I’m sorry, but this is totally unacceptable. If someone immigrates to a country, it is their responsibility to integrate into that nation’s society. This is 100% non-negotiable. A society has absolutely no responsibility to accept just anyone and everyone who wants to enter. This is how a society stays alive and prevents parallel societies from forming, and social instability that would develop as a result. As someone living in a western nation, I do not want my society’s values of secularism, gender equality and democracy to be eroded. And yes, if I were to move to a different country, I would do my best to integrate into their culture, out of respect if nothing else. Immigration without assimilation is just an invasion. The fate of the Native Americans is a good example of immigration without careful integration.
Also I don’t mean to be rude, but I genuinely find your stance on this to be disturbing. I can’t understand why someone living in the west (I assume you are living in USA), and who appears educated would make the statement that you did. This may be an area where American and European culture differs.
People don't integrate in reality. They bring their culture with them-for good and bad. That culture becomes part of the dominant culture or it remains a substrata of it.
easysauce wrote: so its strange you would claim this indisputable fact is being ignored.
Future War Cultist wrote: I said that this explanation has two major flaws; one, it overlooks the fact that muslims had been attacking Christians centuries before the crusades (which if anything were a Christian counterattack to take back the lands they'd lost). And two, considering how long ago the crusades were, at what point do you say "look, get over yourself and just let it go"?
He did.
Given just how often the Crusades are referenced by modern Jihadiis its just daft to pretend that the crusades aren't a significant factor in their world view which does indeed mean that modern Islamic violence could be seen as a response to the Crusades, although this is obviously only a small part in a much greater whole.
I'm not pretending that the crusades aren't significant to them because obviously they are. What I'm saying is, they need to let it go, which of course they never will.
I guess I should have explained it better. The way my lecturer was talking about it suggested that she believed that jihadists had a good raison d'etre. "We" hurt their ancestors close to a thousand years ago for no apparent reason, so to this day they're all riled up against us and want to avenge them. Maybe if we bend over backwards to apologise to them they'd cease killing us (fat chance). Personally I don't go in for that sins of the father bs, never mind the sins of the great x 30 grand father.
But she forgot to tell us the full story, about how they had been attacking the west long before the crusades, and how they had conquered those lands in the first place. So they weren't quite the innocent victims of historical atrocities that she was making them out to be. And again, it was almost a thousand years ago. Statute of Limitations are usually around thirty years.
If I had to hazard a guess, I think that my lecturer was just looking for any excuse to blame the west for everything. A very lazy attitude for a professional academic to take.
The thing is, quite often we get to hear that the authorities had knowledge of these dangerous persons that later on committed these attacks...quite often they (the later terrorists) showed allegiance to Isis or whatever...what I think we need is a law that acts on the basis of guilty by association....if you post on fb or wherever what good chaps do heinous crimes in Arabia...then grab them by the collar and put them in a dark hole...
But instead we monitor these guys for months to no avail as they somehow smell the case against them and lay low for a while...then they act...it happened like that way too often...sometimes it really should be enough to imprison a guy for having evil thoughts...
A solution to not removing failed asylum seekers has to be found. The suspect had failed his application, but was still in Europe. Apparently if you fail asylum application but then don't produce papers (likely because having you've destoyed them and lie about your identity to prevent deportation), you get to stay because they don't know where to deport you to.
It sounds like quite a large portion of failed applicants aren't deported, but given that governments want to fudge these number to lower them and right wing paper want to make the most alarmist claims they can, the exact numbers aren't clear, but a few news sites are saying that as many as 50% of failed applicants in Germany don't leave. According to a BBC article the EU as a whole only sent back only 38% of failed applicants in 2013. Entering Europe illegally pays off, because they clearly cannot manage the situation and cannot check or remove false claimants, and that will be exploited by those wanting to commit crime and terrorism.
This is just the issue, where do you send the people that no country wants to take. In this case Tunisia wasn't willing to take him back and as they had no evidence they could not force him to go there. Were not really allowed to put them on a boat and cut them loose. Maybe people would be ok with that happening to this guy, but what about an innocent person?
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
CptJake wrote: Out of curiosity, what money has the US gained from our recent military efforts? The only personal gain I can think of is combat experience.
Okay, so, the largest industry in the US (and a lot of other western countries) is finance and insurance. There are literally trillions of dollars riding on things like oil, construction, defence contracts, stocks, shares, securities, government bonds, as well as the outcome of geopolitical events, which might influence these markets, and a thousand others.
Every time there is an election, or a disaster, or an attack, or a war... there are teams of analysts and traders at places like Goldman Sachs, tuned in, looking for a way to profit out of it. And they're not just idly spit-balling ideas. They're on the phone with politicians, lobbyists, media corporations, business leaders etc... making damn sure that things break in their favour, and they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars at it, because they'll make billions in return. Make no mistake, no matter who loses, Wall Street always wins: they control the game.
They will happily steer that ship wherever the most profits are, and it doesn't bother them at all to watch markets collapse, jobs lost, nation states fail, or war break out. In fact they love that kind of stuff, it's great for business.
Go and read about Goldman Sachs involvement in the Greek debt crisis, they practically engineered the whole thing. They both contributed to, and profited from the credit crunch, betting against the market, and their own clients (people lost their pension funds). Then maybe take a look at the people Trump is padding his cabinet with, take a look at who Bush, Clinton and every president in modern history took his advice from, to see how deep this incestuous and corrupt relationship goes.
The "America" you like to think you live in, might not have profited out of recent military action. Probably, nobody you know profited. But the people at the top pulling the strings, they all profited, I guarantee it.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
CptJake wrote: Out of curiosity, what money has the US gained from our recent military efforts? The only personal gain I can think of is combat experience.
Okay, so, the largest industry in the US (and a lot of other western countries) is finance and insurance. There are literally trillions of dollars riding on things like oil, construction, defence contracts, stocks, shares, securities, government bonds, as well as the outcome of geopolitical events, which might influence these markets, and a thousand others.
Every time there is an election, or a disaster, or an attack, or a war... there are teams of analysts and traders at places like Goldman Sachs, tuned in, looking for a way to profit out of it. And they're not just idly spit-balling ideas. They're on the phone with politicians, lobbyists, media corporations, business leaders etc... making damn sure that things break in their favour, and they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars at it, because they'll make billions in return. Make no mistake, no matter who loses, Wall Street always wins: they control the game.
They will happily steer that ship wherever the most profits are, and it doesn't bother them at all to watch markets collapse, jobs lost, nation states fail, or war break out. In fact they love that kind of stuff, it's great for business.
Go and read about Goldman Sachs involvement in the Greek debt crisis, they practically engineered the whole thing. They both contributed to, and profited from the credit crunch, betting against the market, and their own clients (people lost their pension funds). Then maybe take a look at the people Trump is padding his cabinet with, take a look at who Bush, Clinton and every president in modern history took his advice from, to see how deep this incestuous and corrupt relationship goes.
The "America" you like to think you live in, might not have profited out of recent military action. Probably, nobody you know profited. But the people at the top pulling the strings, they all profited, I guarantee it.
So in short, no, the US did not profit form the Trillion plus spent on the wars. Our GDP sure as heck does not show a return on investment (and GDP takes into account private as well as gov't).
Thanks for the long winded answer confirming my gut feeling.
Frazzled wrote: Literally none of what you said makes sense in relation to the question he asked, unless you're a Mother Jones poster I guess.
Tneva82 said that western countries have been messing around in the middle east, bombing stuff for money and profit. He asked how America had profited.
I explained how a portion of America does profit -- a portion that represents America's largest industry, and essentially owns the American government -- I explained how they profit, and why they have a vested interest in manipulating global politics. I even gave a specific example, and pointed to further reading.
Then you say: "literally none of that makes sense". It's a shame that you feel that way, because if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.
tneva82 wrote: Why go to ancient history when modern era has plenty of western countries messing around there and bombing stuff for money and personal gain.
Out of curiosity, what money has the US gained from our recent military efforts? The only personal gain I can think of is combat experience.
No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.
if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.
Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.
CptJake wrote: Thanks for the long winded answer confirming my gut feeling.
Confirmation bias aside. The GDP does not reflect how specific parties may have profited. As I pointed out, Goldman Sachs profited in 2008 as the rest of the world was plummeted into economic crisis. The fact that people are able to profit from global conflict, and have a vested interest in creating and prolonging it, is why there are so many people who are angry at America (a super power that is essentially owned by capitalists).
Considering the US didn't invade anyone in 2008 your "evidence" seems to support the exact opposite of your claim.
Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media. Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?
jhe90 wrote: process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
Finally, some common sense. Give priority to the minorities of the Middle East like the Yazidies and the Christians, because they're the ones suffering from persecutions the most.
In addition to this, mix in the Australian approach. Anyone who tries to cross the med will be escorted back to were they started from. Even if they land on the European coast they should be brought back anyway. Make that crossing a completely pointless endeavour and it will stop, as will the mass drownings.
And while we're at it, encourage those Saudi Arabian scumbags to do more to help, instead of complaining about the risk of their culture being eroded. Those tent cities for pilgrims they have would make good refugee camps.
Frazzled wrote: No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.
if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.
Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.
It's not BS though is it? I challenge you to point to one part of my post that isn't demonstrably true.
As for the Hitler comparison. That's exactly the kind of pitiful and baseless appeal to emotion I expect from you. I'll see your Hitler, and raise you Jesus, who also threw the money changers out of the temple, and the bible has plenty to say on usury.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?
Frazzled wrote: Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media. Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?
For the hard of understanding: the point I was making was that they profited from the crash, even though the economy was in ruin. Which was a counter point to CptJake's claim that the the GDP didn't go up, so no one profited.
Frazzled wrote: No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.
if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.
Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.
It's not BS though is it? I challenge you to point to one part of my post that isn't demonstrably true.
Can't prove a negative. Apple also did well. Therefor Apple is deeply involved in the Middle East. Apple has blood on its hands!!!!
As for the Hitler comparison. That's exactly the kind of pitiful and baseless appeal to emotion I expect from you. I'll see your Hitler, and raise you Jesus, who also threw the money changers out of the temple, and the bible has plenty to say on usury.
Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I Jesus did not talk about an international financial conspiracy. Hitler did. Basic Fail II.
Whats next, a little blood libel? I mean if you're going to go for it, lets quit beating around the bush and go for it.
Frazzled wrote: Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media. Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?
For the hard of understanding: the point I was making was that they profited from the crash, even though the economy was in ruin. Which was a counter point to CptJake's claim that the the GDP didn't go up, so no one profited.
I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion dollar industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fething obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.
Smacks wrote: I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.
You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.
Frazzled wrote: You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that only jews can be bankers? That sounds like your own racist construction. It really has nothing to do with what I said. Just because I'm against people callously profiteering from things like war and environmental destruction, doesn't mean I'm against jews.
This just sounds like another weak argument from you. Calling me a racist (which I'm not at all) is really just attacking me personally, it's ad hominem. Pathetic.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?
With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.
Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.
Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.
We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.
Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.
Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.
Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.
...
Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.
Carrot and sticks.
Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.
Smacks wrote: I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.
You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.
Some people use international bankers to mean bankers who operate internationally, rather than the dog whistle term for some shadowy conglomerate of Jews who supposedly run the whole worlds economies.
If your first thought when someone says international bankers is some shadowy jewish conspiracy rather than a generic person in a suit then that's an issue with you.
Frazzled wrote: Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I
I was responding to your comment about banks, not specifically Goldman. So not a fail. And also Goldman Sachs are Goldman Sachs "investing and lending", so stick that in your fail pipe and smoke it.
Frazzled wrote: You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that only jews can be bankers? That sounds like your own racist construction. It really has nothing to do with what I said. Just because I'm against people callously profiteering from things like war and environmental destruction, doesn't mean I'm against jews.
This just sounds like another weak argument from you. Calling me a racist (which I'm not at all) is really just attacking me personally, it's ad hominem. Pathetic.
You made the statements, I didn't. There is a a 100 year tradition of antisemitism concerning international bankers etc. etc. Either you're anti-semetic or need to educate yourself on your own statements.
Smacks wrote: I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.
You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.
Some people use international bankers to mean bankers who operate internationally, rather than the dog whistle term for some shadowy conglomerate of Jews who supposedly run the whole worlds economies.
If your first thought when someone says international bankers is some shadowy jewish conspiracy rather than a generic person in a suit then that's an issue with you.
When you light that puppy up by specifically naming Goldman Sachs, you betcha.
Frazzled wrote: Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I
I was responding to your comment about banks, not specifically Goldman. So not a fail. And also Goldman Sachs are Goldman Sachs "investing and lending", so stick that in your fail pipe and smoke it.
Loans are not their primary business, its a loss leader for their other services.
STILL HAVEN"T SHOWN ANY LINK TO THE US MAKING A PROFIT OFF THE ME WARS SINCE 2001.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?
With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.
Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.
Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.
We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.
Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.
Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.
Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.
...
Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.
Carrot and sticks.
Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.
Its a far from simple strategy.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
Yes you did, you made a direct comparison between me an Hitler. Which is completely uncalled for.
When you light that puppy up by specifically naming Goldman Sachs, you betcha.
Goldman Sachs had a direct hand in Greek debt crisis, and have been heavily criticised for their actions therein, which were arguably fraudulent. Are you saying no one is allowed to criticise that kind of practice? That has nothing whatsoever to do with criticizing jews, unless you're an idiot.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?
With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.
Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.
Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.
We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.
Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.
Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.
Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.
...
Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.
Carrot and sticks.
Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.
Its a far from simple strategy.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
A iron curtain.. Its control...
Qmwr control the border. The ways in. No more thousands unchecked. No more berlin if we can help it.
And Syria. No. We back Assad.
He better than Islamic state. Better than FSA.
Not good. But wr pick a aside . Stop funding terrorism. Isolate. Defund. Destroy.
Or stand aside and let arussian backed Syrians reclaim there country.
End the civil wars breeding the crisis one way or another. Mo war, no refugees.
And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?
Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.
The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..
Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.
This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?
With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.
Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.
Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.
We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.
Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.
Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.
Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.
...
Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.
Carrot and sticks.
Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.
Its a far from simple strategy.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
A iron curtain.. Its control...
Qmwr control the border. The ways in. No more thousands unchecked. No more berlin if we can help it.
And Syria. No. We back Assad.
He better than Islamic state. Better than FSA.
Not good. But wr pick a aside . Stop funding terrorism. Isolate. Defund. Destroy.
Or stand aside and let arussian backed Syrians reclaim there country.
End the civil wars breeding the crisis one way or another. Mo war, no refugees.
You're being unrealistic again. The Iron Curtain never stopped people from crossing and was too big to properly control the entire border. Unless we advocate violence we wont stop border crossings. The area is just to vast to properly cover. Again how do you plan to fund this? Have you found a way to turn rocks into gold? Cause here on the mainland money sure doesn't grow on trees.
And backing Assad means those people can't go back. Those young men you keep bringing up? They will have a wonderful time trying to explain to Assad's regime why they left instead of fought. You can't send these people back to Assad, its murder. Were risking the lives of millions of Syrians just so you can prevent four crazy people from doing something in Germany.
Frazzled wrote: Highly called for. You're using his language.
Your are being both ridiculous and libellous. Nothing I have said has anything whatsoever to do with Jews or Hitler, and (for the record) I'm completely and utterly opposed to anti-Semitism and Nazism. Your tenuous straw man is as obviously false as it is repugnant. I see no reasonable excuse for you to continue to pursue it, other than dishonesty and spitefulness.
Also Greece is not the Middle East, nor is it related to your argument that the US has profited off the ME wars.
Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics.
And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics.
***Again nothing to do with the ME. I must have missed where the US was bogged down in a war in Greece.
And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
***Lockheed profited yes. please show me where Lockheed destroyed the towers.
Frazzled wrote: Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics. ***Again nothing to do with the ME. I must have missed where the US was bogged down in a war in Greece.
I have made my point quite clearly. Stop moving the goalposts around. It was never my intention to show that Greece is in the ME, you're just being ridiculous again. My intention was to show that corporations can have a big impact on global politics, and that they can profit from disasters, which they sometimes also have a hand in creating, because of conflicts of interest among politicians and regulators. I offered Greece and the Credit Crunch as examples of that, because they are. So: goal attained.
Frazzled wrote: And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest. ***Lockheed profited yes. please show me where Lockheed destroyed the towers.
I do not have to show you where lockheed destroyed the towers (another example of you moving the goalposts). My goal was to provide an example (one among many) of an American company with political clout that has profited from war. I have provided an example of an American company, which invests in defence, and which also has ties to politicians, who have, in no uncertain terms, lead us to war. That is 'at best' a disturbing conflict of interest. Again: goal attained.
On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France.
You point is that refuges are statistically nota threat and also are not seen to be responsible for actioned attacks and very few terrorist infiltrators have been detected amongsrt the large influx of Syrian refugees. So in your opinion it is unwelcoming and unhelpful to focus on them, If that was your point, then I understood it.
My point was that you can't just handwave other countries as complacent, but then blast Germany cause it had to be all the refugees clogging up the system. In Germany it was complacency too in part as I will explain at the end.
OK. Merkel was complacent, and doctrinaire in exposing Germany to massive immigration. The German security services were not complacent they were looking at the problem most studiously from what we can see. Every indication shows that the German state security took the Islamic threat and Islamic immigration very seriously.
And in the 70's and 80's we had left wing socialist violence in Europe, certainly a side effect of large non-integrated socialist cultures in Europe The leading cause for homegrown radicalization is the inability and difficulty that second or third generation immigrants have in functioning in society, there are still issues of racism towards employment and less viable chances overall in life. These people radicalize cause they see it as there only way out and are in one way or another desperate, not because they are not integrated.
Patently untrue. The terrorists we are finding have histories of having no intention to integrate. Germany is not a nation of lost opportunity, at least since the early 60's. Second or third generation immigrants in Germany are part of a society that had no problems providing high employment and had jobs for immigrant, primarily Turkish workers. As with any such immigration there were clashes with far right, far left and fundamentalist individuals, but by and large Germany has have a Moslem workforce for a considerable time, and it has not found itself to be an unwanted and unemployable minority driven by desperation. The facts imply don't bear that out.
I cant say I remember too much of my life in Germany in the 70's and in the late 80's early 90's but finding work as an immigrant (or equivalent) was very easy. Its still easy enough today. In fact unemployment is at a 35 year low right now, even with an extra million inhabitants and with many of those still in processing camps.
Jihadism is just another side effect of a large political stream of thought such as socialism or nationalism. We have to combat it, but the way isn't to treat all Muslims as fifth columnists.
Here you have a clash of wills. Its the same strategy. The ihadists will want to hide in the immigrant population to turn the populace against them and to make the state have no choice but to heavily monitor them. As the immigrants are progressively alienated more will be open for radicalisation.
The state on the other hand knows the best way to combat that strategy is to integrate. The best way to integrate is to show some trust and faith and opportunity to the immigrants. Germany was willing to do this, and greeting the first wave with clapping. The unfortuneate fact is that an unknown proportion are already radicalised, and many more are sympathetic to jihadism.
IDK why you think I'm wrong as the evidence so far is stacked against you.
You are wrong because you are looking at this in a skewed and two dimensional way. In effect you have bought the soothing words of propaganda indicating there is nothing wrong. Such as the only four confirmed previously actioned terrorists in the immigrant population detected. For a start thats detected, and its only one category. Also an ex-Jihadi is probably less of a threat than those who have yet to commit an attack and want to do their bit.
1. Four is too many. Four is also smaller than the amount of murderers nationals bring forth that is too many. Again you can provide me the numbers if it is too high amongst that section of the population right? Demonstrate that the refugees are out of proportion. Going of homicide statistics proves you wrong though. And really we shouldn't compare the Irish from the troubles to a war zone with daily airstrikes, poison gas attacks and years of siege, one is more likely to bring out a higher number of psychological issues than the other.
Ok. So lets look shall we. According to this site Germany does very well according to 2010 data 8 murders per million population.
This is not unexpected. Sounds like those refugees are twice as unmurderous as regular Germans yes?
Sorry wrong.
First the vast majority of murders are regular crimes. For every person being targeted by a terrorist even in a war zone, several more will die because of looting, collateral, etc.
In a civilised nation murders happen because burglars get disturbed at home, muggers panic after the victim takes too long to get his wallet out, because they shoot a cop, or want to collect insurance money etc etc.
- Approximately eight or so of those Syrian refugees will be of that mindset also year by year, assuming all people in Germany have a broadly similar outlook towards crime. The terrorists are EXTRA bonus for Germany!
- The murder rate in Syria prior to the civil war is 21 per million, assuming the immigrants behave like Syrians and not Germans, and this is fairly indicative of how murder statistics play out, we can exprct a three fold increase to the national average . To be fair to the Syrians, twenty one per million is still not too bad, about half as murderous as Americans at forty two murders per million..
- The state security found four ex-terrorists, how many didn't they find? How deep is the iceberg, whst havent we found yet and how many are fresh terrorists in waiting.
- Terrorists are a special problem. Most murder is avoidable unless the murderer intended to kill you. Hand over the wallet, look yourself in the bathroom and phone the police, dont confront an armed intruder. Most murders are crimes of excess. This doesnt work with terrorism. You are shopping when.... you are on a train when.... you go to a synagogue when.... Its different.
2. In two years its been four people! Meanwhile almost 1600 Germans have murdered someone else. The better have a whole army biding their time to make up for their efforts so far. And we have a good idea how many are committed terrorists, just look at the nationals list, Germany had several hundred nationals going abroad to fight who are now returning. Your terrorism 101 is also a tad outdated.
Your post is a bit disjointed and unclear here. Are you talking about German passport holders who go off to fight jihad? If so its a problem for the UK also. But its a problem we cant prevent entering the psyche because the people who have these intentions already unfortunately have EU passports.
The trick is not to add more.
The most successful terrorist attacks have all been committed by trained terrorists. So far you are just speculating about numbers that isn't in any way supported by the evidence. When will we see this massive increase in attacks? If it is as easy as stealing a truck, why isn't this a weekly occurrence?
We sadly must speculate about numbers because the real data gets classified in a hurry. If I did know the real data I couldn't share it on Dakka, and neither could you.
We have to go by patterns of what is in the public domain. Four 'ex-terrorists' found in the Syrian refugees, check, note however exactly how that number is broken down and what it doesn't include. Its a safe number to release to the press and may well be unindicative. Veteran jihadis will be easier to find, they might have recorded images of them with ISIL flags and guns, or be known of from fellow fighters. Also few will dare try to enter Europe if they are known actioned fighters, they will be easy to find and might get charged with terror offences on entry. Finally ISIL neds its veteran fighters in the war and cant spare triggermen to sit in German refugee camps. By and large those four are likely deserters. ISIL will send a different category of people as sleepers.
3. Of course it means they were right to investigate, it's what they exist for. But based of those statistics either they are doing a good job or there just aren't that many. Of course this could change later with radicalization, but that is an argument to help them to the best of our abilities, to make sure they don't have a need to fall back into bad habits.
You half understand. Yes most are actioned yet, but if they are already sympathisers and mostl already radicalised you are onto a loser. Unless you have heacvily encouraged integration. Sadly Europe doesn't do this because the political classes are in denial. Instead radicalised immigrants go into the mainstream European population where they learn very quickly that Europe is rife for jihad. We are so piss weak in their mind (and not without merit of argument) that because we make excuses due to liberal progressive attitudes, and because our society is constantly trying to overlook abuses, or blame it on far right lies. Many of the immigrants see no reason to integrate, no reason not to extend bad habits. Rape and rape away, the weak western politicians will cover up the horrible truth.
There is no incentive to integrate, and they don't want t join what they see as a dying infidel society, not when they are as their clerics say already are on the winning side.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them.
Agreed, it is a difficult process. But I'm just trying to keep the discussion on the process in reality, which the media doesn't always do.
It is hard to use the media. Far right is far right, progressive left is just as bad, in fact worst as it covers up crimes, at least the far right have a valid excuse for their anger, the problem instead is what they do with it.
From the UK perspective the press dont want to know the gory details.
The case of brutal horrible and violent discrimination in Birmingham that I knew of in 2008 was so brutal and violent and discriminatory that the press didnt want to know, with exception of the Daily Mail. My contacts decided not to run with the story because it would then be 'yet another' Daily Fail lie and it would do that family no good. The actual truth is the Daily Mail and Daily Express are posting REAL stories of brutal offences by Islamic minorities that nobody else will print, and are thus seen as uncorroborated lies.
Thankfully in 2010 the new Prime Minister acted very quickly on the Islamified Trojan Horse plot in schools, the papers covered stories from the times. Though some covered more than others. However it was refered to as a Trojan Horse plot, as in covert and only late detected, that was a nice bit of spin. It wasnt in any way undetectable, the Islamic teaching staff were very overt in their discrimination indoctrination and brutality, its just that the Blair and Brown administrations didnt want to know about it.
You have to look between the lines on these issues use the independent and alternative media, look at intelligence websites and see independent reports. Thankfully due to the mobile phone it is getting difficult for European government to keep a full lid on the Islamic rape culture as victims have social media, an some nasty cases are happy slapped anyway by the perpetrators.
If both those countries drop the ball once in a while, why does it have to be refugees for Germany? Why can't Germany just drop the ball, as it is starting to look like. Yet even Isreal, with its massive investment had great trouble with the second Intifada or just last year with loners stabbing or running over people. There is a limit to what you can prevent. Maybe the four in Germany just prevent that limit to an extent.
Even Mossad/Shin Bet and MI5 drop the ball, and those are the best internal security agencies on the planet since the end of the DDR. Try as they might nobody stops them all. Israel still gets attacked frm the inside every now and then, and atrocities like 7/7 occur.
Error and complacency are not the same, humans make errors, bad discipline makes complacency.
The AfD blamed this attack on Merkel for letting the refugees in. If this isn't a clear cut case for AfD thinks refugees=terrorists=dead Germans=blame Merkel for refugees I don't know what is. Blaming just the Muslims isn't any better, it just makes you more racist, the ones most open to radicalization are some of the most secularized Muslims.
Right the AfD is not saying this about refugees. they are saying this about Islamic refugees. Please notice the difference. The Uk has the same difference, there are anti Islaic movement and anti-refugee movements. The two overlap but are not the same:
Anti-refugee arguments = 'they are taking our jobs', 'our country is full', 'social welfare and state medical care are overstretched'.
anti-Islamic refugee arguments = 'we are importing jihad'
AfD might well have anti-immigration policies on top of anti-Islamic policies but the two are in fact separate issues.
The AfD, Front National and Wilders all lie based on false statistics. These people don't have the answers, they are just the alt-right or breitbart of political parties. We tried having Wilders involved in government and he knew gak all, these are not coherent parties, they are foreigners bad! Ethnic (christian) nationals gud!
I think Peregrine is helping out this part nicely.
Peregrine is always happy to help out if he can bash Christians. Nearly all the political power amongst Eurpean parties is secular, there are few exceptions and most who call themselves Christian are making an ethnic statement not a statement of faith. Christian Democrats is just another very European way of saying 'liberal' and is a secular movement overall. Many centre politic non-chtristians, atheists or agnostics will have common ground with them to the point of representing them in various parliaments.
Again with the empty rhetoric. Give me something to work on, evidence the Iceberg is covered in refugee infiltrators. Non of the facts are on your side.
Oh come on now.
Handwave denials. How lazy, how common. How to answer this:
A. In case you are terribly stupid.
No, sorry I don't have access to classified information, or don't want to go to prison by sharing it on Dakka. I will leave you to speculate which is true.
B. In all other instances (which I presume means you).
You don't have/or cant share the facts either for the above reason. Stop placing an uneven burden. You have equal access to what we all have. Press reports, eye witness reports, and inquiring and and analytical brain.
I cant disclose operational details of counter-terrorist statistics, I don't possess, neither do you possess this data. The data we get released by government intelligence sourcing are heavily editted and massaged for propaganda value.
The main tool we have for determining effect is the fact that what we see today hold true with patterns of terrorist and intelligence operations in history, and we do have information on the methods. For example he methodology for Islamic revolution is similar to the methodology for socialist revolution. What worked in Cuba will to some extent work in Europe, though the timescales will be longer as socialism is for all, sharia society is for the Ummah, and Islamification spreads about the same speed of the demographc of the ethnic Moslem population and most Islamists beleive that conversion while it will help is only a minor factor.
We also have historical evidence as to how jihad itsefl operated in the modern age. Iran is a good well documented example, Taliban in Afhanistan etc. Its harder to get a real look into western security agency methodologies but those are also in the public domain if you look. Both from historical counterintelligence methods, CIA in Central America for example, or better yet from terrorist vs western security conflicts that have moved into a post conflict period of openness and healing. The best two examples of this are Northern Ireland and South Africa. These last two conflicts were operated by competent and well funded security agencies and while much remains classified, much is also in the public domain, most notably methodologies.
So all in all. I don't have meaningful data, neither do you. We both have access to information about how terrorists and security agencies work and can see that the patterns of what works from both ends are being replicated by the parties concerned. Remember that as ISIL is linked to a long history of terrorist activities in the middle east the commanders of ISIL will be largely following the methodologies of previous terror agencies. What works/ed for Hamas, Taliban or for that matter Irgun, works for ISIL.
So cut the bullgak of saying unless one has a load of classified counter-terrorist data to spill on Dakka one has no argument.
Also you dont understand the iceberg reference.
The analogy is not an iceberg covered in Islamic infiltrators. The Islamic infiltrators are the iceberg. Take a look at the above picture. How much 'Islamic fundamentalism' do you normally see if we represent Islamic fundamentalism as ice. Jihadist infiltrators don't normally announce themselves, you have find them. Some are better hidden than others.
German state security srutinised the refugees and found that their concerns hold true, jihadists have infiltrated the refugees. This is likely why most are still holed up in detention centres and are not allowed to roam around Germany. They are in effect imprisoned/detained indeinitely.
We found 'only' four was NOT the good news you think it is.
Please also bear in mind it is in the partisan interest of the German government just as it was with New Labour regime in the UK and currently in Sweden to heavily downplay the threat posed.
How are statistics skewed, we have it on record that there is no increase in reports, you're just grasping at straws saying but they could be, but then so could those of the native pop.
How do you claim I am clutching at straws. I didnt link to the Islamic rape crisis because I didnt need to. No more than I need to post the wiki page on Germany to show i am not talking about a made up fictitious country. The evidence is all around you.
Have some more:
We should let 1.1 mil people rot because of that chance?? We have had refugees from the Middle-East and Jihadism since the 70's yet it has never been an enormous problem, what makes people believe its going to be one now?
There is one now because of the head in sand denial that is enabling Islamic immigrants to impose their standards where women have grossly inferior status and rights on our society. Those immigranbts who tried that in the 70's were quickly rounded on. We didnt tolerate rape culture because our politics was not infected with progressive liberalism or political correctness. Immigrants from violent third world countries were told that Europe was different. For the most part it worked.
We also didn't import millions in the space of a few weeks and above all Islamic fundamentalists, while definitely there did not see our societies as week and ripe for takeover as the current generation of radical clerics see the west due to the apologism demonstrated by those in European society who refuse to see the threat.
In effect Islamists see Europe as ripe for the taking because of apologists like yourself. You might hold liberal values, and some of them are laudable at face value. These people will exploit that, but once they have a majority, which is the state claim of many clerics they will impose their will and your rights and customs will NOT be respected.
Bending over backwards 'tolerence' only leads to self destruction. You are feeding the wolf and letting it grow.
It does sectarian for one reason, it's just to outlet for all the problems they encounter, their justification, most of these young men weren't strict Muslims (drinking, sex, eating pork) to begin with but Radical Islam is their outlet for frustration just like communism used to be. In the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's we had Indonesians from our former colony commting terror attacks to protest there treatment, they were in majority christian. It is almost like colonizing someone, then having a massive transplantation of an entirely different cultural and ethnic group has some effect if not managed properly.
The problem now exists on a different scale, hence the influx of rapes and the political paralysis in dealing with the issue.
All European nations are guilty of doing less than they should have done to integrate these people, and of course some of the blame should rest on those that are unwilling as well.
Yet the amount that goes on and commits these kind of attacks is tiny and not in any way representative of these communities.
That is so wrong. What was very alarming other than the attacks themselves, was that on the day of 7/7 Moselm community leaders on TV refused to condemn the attacks, and the odd one or two who did made wishy washy statements about being against all violence. Also the sympathiser to terrorist ratio is normally very high, got a terrorist, you have x thousand sympathisers also. I dont have the figure for the actual ratio.
We have blown this issue out of proportion because it seems very scary to us that we can just be killed by a random angry person. Yet the chance of dying in a car accident is much higher but it doesn't make people less hesitant to drive a car.
Terrorists are out to get us, and they WILL kill us if they can. And I don't live in fear of that. But I do live in a reality of saying 'no jihadists welcome here'. And if it means it takes a while for the Syrian refugees to sit in a detention camp until Germany thinks they have deported all the undesirables then so be it. The German government has decided by their own sovereign will to do exactly that.
In a nutshell the German government doesn't trust all those Syrian refugees to be properly vetted and processed yet. Merkel for all her talk of opening Germany has decided possibly under heavy advisement from the German security services not to release all the Syrians into the national community, at least not yet.
Sure, but I was just mentioning that they did not seem to have a good video of the attacker this time as they arrested the Pakistani first and only almost two days later figured out that it might have been someone else. That's the point I was referring to in this case, apologies if that was unclear.
Your comment was valid either way. Police were not negligent by arresting the wrong man, they acted quickly on fallible eye witness testimony and arrested the wrong man. The police also took caution but didnt automatically presume his guilt allowed the suspect to defend his own reputation and let him go once they were sure he was no longer a suspect. By which time forensic evidence was now available and the search criteria changed.
Arrest immediately based on eye witness info, then switch once scientific info is processed looks to me that the Germans are trying to do what they can when they are able to do it, and are not sitting around.
They came up with a prime suspects identity fairly quickly all told, about as quickly as they could have done. Forensics takes time.
The post-attack reaction appears competent and professional on every level.
In this case he left his ID in the truck (apparently). Further information we have gotten is that he looked and inquired into ways to make explosives and sought out IS online.
Very possible. If he left his ID it was a lucky break, but the police waited until they had forensic evidence to tie him to the vehicle.
ID can be planted as a decoy, if it buys critical hours for the suspect to escape so much the better.
That combined with the firearm sure makes it seem like the intelligence agencies dropped the ball. To make it even worse, he was already supposed to have been deported back to Tunisia but they were unable to.
I thought you were going to use this as your claim for German complacency at the beginning of your post.
First as stated earlier this isnt complacency, after all the German security services did want to deport him. He wasn't overlooked.
Second you aren't being fair. There are a large number of people security services want out of a European country but cannot get rid of as easily as they would have liked.
Take this charming gentleman:
Early in the Blair years he was clearly a threat an in the press but the government of the time wanted to downplay Islam, which was odd allowing for how vitriolic they could be with other forms of dissent.
When the government did want to act and extradition warrants started to be filed from partner agencies there began a long legal battle to deport Hamza. Hamza was eventually deported after several appeals in 2012, eight years after extradition request was signed. The European Courts also got involved.
It is interesting that the timeline of Hamzas extradition covered a similar period of hacker Gary McKinnon. McKinnon's extradition appeals were exhausted fairly rapidly and the European courts were not sympathetic despite large holes in the extradition claim against him and human rights issues. McKinnon only managed to stay in the UK because his extradition became toxic because of massive popular support and press attention. Hamza had a large press attention and the UK government could not get rid of him fast enough, and the British people were eager to comply with US extradition requests. Yet appeal after appeal and European interference protected him for a long time, human rights issues were raised even though there was no indication the US were a threat to his human rights unlike McKinnon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
Hamza is now in Florence ADX, Colerado supermax, and there he is likely to stay. McKinnon is safe so long as he doesn't enter the USA anytime over the next seventy odd years. I think he can manage.
So here we have a man who was clearly looking at a way to attack Germans and acting on this in front of the police, that would assuredly be deported back to Tunisia, perhaps making him even more desperate or rushed to commit this attack, yet he was still walking around as a free man. If that isn't a whole heap of ineptitude and complacency I don't know what is!
As stated above deportation is not a given. Heavily extended and lucrative legal processes get in the way. Terror suspects are cash ins for state funded lawyers, who can claim extra fees from the public purse because they are dealing with security issues. Its a popular junket. Its how people like Cherie lair made their millions. Deportation for everyone else is more open and shut.
Press tend not to report that bit, but as with Abu Hamza sometimes the full, ugly, fee ridden and lucrative process is revealed.
Yes it is very likely that the German security services wanted to remove Anis Amri, but cannot due to technicalities. He was monitored not arrested in a prior sweep and we will never lnow exactly why. whether he was considered too low down the perceived threat order to arrest, or because doing so would expose operations, or monitoring him was expected to lead security to yet unknown figures. It is hard to condemn German intelligence for their hard choices.
And if they hadn't the manpower to continue monitoring him due to having to vet 1.1 million Syrians I have sympathies.
Merkel is blaming the police, wheras she should be blaming the open door policy. Amri's deportation failed due to lack of paperwork from Tunisia, a neat lawyers trick.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.
A lot of your posts are.
The case made by our Mr Müller ( Gerd Müller / CSU / BMZ ) how we could help many times more people closer to where they come from instead of having them in the middle of Europe is convincing.
He said it multiple times and I think people like you try their best to ignore the possibilities. I'd rather see € invested long term and with less participants.
"Advocating death" ... you know how silly replies like this are? The choice where you are isn't always yours. The Laws dealing with this are also not set in stone for eternity. The Right to stay can be granted or denied.
But never should it be acceptable to let some "undesirables" go somewhere else and then refuse to take them back. Seems this happens....
To crash a truck into people is a crime.
If someone had his time in jail already, maybe the group "refugee" or "immigrant" isn't the correct tag to put on him?
So following your logic, we should not deny entry to anyone, because the person who may be a risk to the life of humans already here cannot be a problem if part of the group "refugee"...
maybe one Day you realize, the Germans don't argue for "zero refugees" but for keeping the state in control who is running around here.
No one said "let them die out of sight".
But there is no reason to hand out "get free out of jail cards" just to make a few people living in an illusionary world happy.
On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France.
You point is that refuges are statistically nota threat and also are not seen to be responsible for actioned attacks and very few terrorist infiltrators have been detected amongsrt the large influx of Syrian refugees. So in your opinion it is unwelcoming and unhelpful to focus on them, If that was your point, then I understood it.
My point was that you can't just handwave other countries as complacent, but then blast Germany cause it had to be all the refugees clogging up the system. In Germany it was complacency too in part as I will explain at the end.
OK. Merkel was complacent, and doctrinaire in exposing Germany to massive immigration. The German security services were not complacent they were looking at the problem most studiously from what we can see. Every indication shows that the German state security took the Islamic threat and Islamic immigration very seriously.
Again, what is your reason for assuming so, what are your indications? Every state should take it seriously, that doesn't mean they didn't make a mistake this time.
And in the 70's and 80's we had left wing socialist violence in Europe, certainly a side effect of large non-integrated socialist cultures in Europe The leading cause for homegrown radicalization is the inability and difficulty that second or third generation immigrants have in functioning in society, there are still issues of racism towards employment and less viable chances overall in life. These people radicalize cause they see it as there only way out and are in one way or another desperate, not because they are not integrated.
Patently untrue. The terrorists we are finding have histories of having no intention to integrate. Germany is not a nation of lost opportunity, at least since the early 60's. Second or third generation immigrants in Germany are part of a society that had no problems providing high employment and had jobs for immigrant, primarily Turkish workers. As with any such immigration there were clashes with far right, far left and fundamentalist individuals, but by and large Germany has have a Moslem workforce for a considerable time, and it has not found itself to be an unwanted and unemployable minority driven by desperation. The facts imply don't bear that out.
I cant say I remember too much of my life in Germany in the 70's and in the late 80's early 90's but finding work as an immigrant (or equivalent) was very easy. Its still easy enough today. In fact unemployment is at a 35 year low right now, even with an extra million inhabitants and with many of those still in processing camps.
I'm speaking about Europe in general. Again the heaviest attacks have been committed by second and third generation nationals. The man in question now has been in Europe since 2011-2012, you're telling me it took him 4 years to work out how to steal a truck? Even in Germany there is discrimination to a certain extent, you can't just ignore the problems these communities face. There are also hundreds of German nationals that went to Syria. Why did these people go if its so great in Germany. Some people just fall outside of the system and feel the need to take out that frustration in this manner. I'm not saying its right or that they shouldn't try harder instead of this, but neglecting that this is one of the main causes of us losing sight of radicalizing nationals, we think they are fine and should be ok in our society, but not all are. I know how Germany works as I have studied it extensively both in an economic and security context, its a great country and arguably the most successful one of mainland Europe. That still doesn't mean that some people don't get left behind and 'act out' in insane ways.
Jihadism is just another side effect of a large political stream of thought such as socialism or nationalism. We have to combat it, but the way isn't to treat all Muslims as fifth columnists.
Here you have a clash of wills. Its the same strategy. The ihadists will want to hide in the immigrant population to turn the populace against them and to make the state have no choice but to heavily monitor them. As the immigrants are progressively alienated more will be open for radicalisation.
The state on the other hand knows the best way to combat that strategy is to integrate. The best way to integrate is to show some trust and faith and opportunity to the immigrants. Germany was willing to do this, and greeting the first wave with clapping. The unfortuneate fact is that an unknown proportion are already radicalised, and many more are sympathetic to jihadism.
Again you're relying on some random number. Its like Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns. Of course refugees and immigrants should be monitored, but so should the native population. The difficulty is establishing how many the intelligence agencies actually catch compared to the real numbers, but so far we have no evidence of it being a large number.
IDK why you think I'm wrong as the evidence so far is stacked against you.
You are wrong because you are looking at this in a skewed and two dimensional way. In effect you have bought the soothing words of propaganda indicating there is nothing wrong. Such as the only four confirmed previously actioned terrorists in the immigrant population detected. For a start thats detected, and its only one category. Also an ex-Jihadi is probably less of a threat than those who have yet to commit an attack and want to do their bit.
Soothing words of propaganda? Look at your comments, you're basically saying that everyone of those refugees could be a terrorist in disguise. I could say that every Dutch or German person I meet is a murderer in disguise. This is why evidence and numbers matter, we have the data to show that no, most of them aren't. Yet you insist I'm looking at it from a skewed perspective? I never said nothing was wrong, but it certainly isn't the huge problem were trying to make it out to be. Again in two years of massive refugee influx its been four cases in Germany, why do we assume there are hordes of them just waiting, waiting for what? What is stopping them from crossing the border, shaking the attention of the national agency and stealing a truck?
1. Four is too many. Four is also smaller than the amount of murderers nationals bring forth that is too many. Again you can provide me the numbers if it is too high amongst that section of the population right? Demonstrate that the refugees are out of proportion. Going of homicide statistics proves you wrong though. And really we shouldn't compare the Irish from the troubles to a war zone with daily airstrikes, poison gas attacks and years of siege, one is more likely to bring out a higher number of psychological issues than the other.
Ok. So lets look shall we. According to this site Germany does very well according to 2010 data 8 murders per million population.
This is not unexpected. Sounds like those refugees are twice as unmurderous as regular Germans yes?
Sorry wrong.
First the vast majority of murders are regular crimes. For every person being targeted by a terrorist even in a war zone, several more will die because of looting, collateral, etc.
In a civilised nation murders happen because burglars get disturbed at home, muggers panic after the victim takes too long to get his wallet out, because they shoot a cop, or want to collect insurance money etc etc.
- Approximately eight or so of those Syrian refugees will be of that mindset also year by year, assuming all people in Germany have a broadly similar outlook towards crime. The terrorists are EXTRA bonus for Germany!
- The murder rate in Syria prior to the civil war is 21 per million, assuming the immigrants behave like Syrians and not Germans, and this is fairly indicative of how murder statistics play out, we can exprct a three fold increase to the national average . To be fair to the Syrians, twenty one per million is still not too bad, about half as murderous as Americans at forty two murders per million..
- The state security found four ex-terrorists, how many didn't they find? How deep is the iceberg, whst havent we found yet and how many are fresh terrorists in waiting.
- Terrorists are a special problem. Most murder is avoidable unless the murderer intended to kill you. Hand over the wallet, look yourself in the bathroom and phone the police, dont confront an armed intruder. Most murders are crimes of excess. This doesnt work with terrorism. You are shopping when.... you are on a train when.... you go to a synagogue when.... Its different.
Here is a better list from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compiled by the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 It has newer data showing it is close to 1 in 100.000 now. Not that much different overall.
So you're saying that because these Syrians might possibly commit murders at the same rate as German nationals that this is a problem? Syria and Germany are completely different countries. Lets get your Turkey analogy back. The rate in Turkey is 4 per 100.000, yet it was never mentioned that the Turks in Germany went on murder sprees that were bigger than those of native Germans. You're assuming that people behave the same way or that the system does in a completely different country. There are many factors involved in homicide rates. The fact that those Syrians for at least two years haven't lived up to this 2.1 per 100.000 is showing that they don't export murder. Or are you arguing they are acclimatizing before they start turning Germany into Syria?
The state didn't find those four terrorists, that's why we know they exist. It might be an iceberg, or it might be an ice cube, but lets not overreact until we know which one it is. If it is an iceberg statistics will slowly show an increase and appropriate measures can be taken. Most murders are also committed by someone you know and not burglars. It is well known that in the summer more people get killed while the time of year for burglars is the darker winter months. Now if you mention organized crime as a whole that might be a factor, but just burglars alone don't murder hundreds each year. Terrorism might be a sudden death, but so is getting murdered by someone you know, so far that someone you know is more likely in Germany.
2. In two years its been four people! Meanwhile almost 1600 Germans have murdered someone else. The better have a whole army biding their time to make up for their efforts so far. And we have a good idea how many are committed terrorists, just look at the nationals list, Germany had several hundred nationals going abroad to fight who are now returning. Your terrorism 101 is also a tad outdated.
Your post is a bit disjointed and unclear here. Are you talking about German passport holders who go off to fight jihad? If so its a problem for the UK also. But its a problem we cant prevent entering the psyche because the people who have these intentions already unfortunately have EU passports.
The trick is not to add more.
Apologies, I indeed referred to those with a German passport or nationals. It is a smaller problem in Germany than in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, but a problem non the less. The issue I was bringing up is that we don't have clear ways of dealing with those who return, as a lack of evidence (although intelligence agencies frequently know) means we can't convict them for participation in terrorist organizations. Just last Tuesday the Dutch agencies announced that they don't have enough time, people or funds to even keep a proper eye on these nationals, yet we haven't had an attack yet. Is that dumb luck, quite possibly. Has it been dumb luck for Germany so far? Again, possibly.
The most successful terrorist attacks have all been committed by trained terrorists. So far you are just speculating about numbers that isn't in any way supported by the evidence. When will we see this massive increase in attacks? If it is as easy as stealing a truck, why isn't this a weekly occurrence?
We sadly must speculate about numbers because the real data gets classified in a hurry. If I did know the real data I couldn't share it on Dakka, and neither could you.
We have to go by patterns of what is in the public domain. Four 'ex-terrorists' found in the Syrian refugees, check, note however exactly how that number is broken down and what it doesn't include. Its a safe number to release to the press and may well be unindicative. Veteran jihadis will be easier to find, they might have recorded images of them with ISIL flags and guns, or be known of from fellow fighters. Also few will dare try to enter Europe if they are known actioned fighters, they will be easy to find and might get charged with terror offences on entry. Finally ISIL neds its veteran fighters in the war and cant spare triggermen to sit in German refugee camps. By and large those four are likely deserters. ISIL will send a different category of people as sleepers.
Yes that is the problem. The issue with terrorism is that it works on such a psychological fear of us as Europeans that it is easy to overreact. I'm not saying you do, but there are plenty of people and media willing to provoke that fear further.
I'm just saying that trained ones have been shown to be a bigger threat. Only the Berlin attacker managed to claim more than one life, we also have the slightly hilarious one of the guy who only managed to blow himself up with a bad bomb. Inexperience means its harder for these people to make large attacks. So far we have no indication they send actual sleeper agents besides the two from the Paris attack, but that was with inside help. Of course they might exist, but so far there is no reason to assume to pose a risk significantly larger than domestic violence, although certainly more shocking.
3. Of course it means they were right to investigate, it's what they exist for. But based of those statistics either they are doing a good job or there just aren't that many. Of course this could change later with radicalization, but that is an argument to help them to the best of our abilities, to make sure they don't have a need to fall back into bad habits.
You half understand. Yes most are actioned yet, but if they are already sympathisers and mostl already radicalised you are onto a loser. Unless you have heacvily encouraged integration. Sadly Europe doesn't do this because the political classes are in denial. Instead radicalised immigrants go into the mainstream European population where they learn very quickly that Europe is rife for jihad. We are so piss weak in their mind (and not without merit of argument) that because we make excuses due to liberal progressive attitudes, and because our society is constantly trying to overlook abuses, or blame it on far right lies. Many of the immigrants see no reason to integrate, no reason not to extend bad habits. Rape and rape away, the weak western politicians will cover up the horrible truth.
There is no incentive to integrate, and they don't want t join what they see as a dying infidel society, not when they are as their clerics say already are on the winning side.
Of course once they radicalize it might be too late, although heavy surveillance by both social and intelligence groups can provide an avenue to de-radicalize. If not then prison or an institution is always a resort to lock up those to dangerous to function in society. No one tries to justify attacks, the once that commit them are scum. But part of the larger group of refugees not integrating is also a problem of state funding for these programs, we always expected them to take care of themselves, but it turns out if you don't reach out to integrate, then neither will they. Again, look at the German rape statistics I quoted, it is not different from the national average.
Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them.
Agreed, it is a difficult process. But I'm just trying to keep the discussion on the process in reality, which the media doesn't always do.
It is hard to use the media. Far right is far right, progressive left is just as bad, in fact worst as it covers up crimes, at least the far right have a valid excuse for their anger, the problem instead is what they do with it.
From the UK perspective the press dont want to know the gory details.
The case of brutal horrible and violent discrimination in Birmingham that I knew of in 2008 was so brutal and violent and discriminatory that the press didnt want to know, with exception of the Daily Mail. My contacts decided not to run with the story because it would then be 'yet another' Daily Fail lie and it would do that family no good. The actual truth is the Daily Mail and Daily Express are posting REAL stories of brutal offences by Islamic minorities that nobody else will print, and are thus seen as uncorroborated lies.
Thankfully in 2010 the new Prime Minister acted very quickly on the Islamified Trojan Horse plot in schools, the papers covered stories from the times. Though some covered more than others. However it was refered to as a Trojan Horse plot, as in covert and only late detected, that was a nice bit of spin. It wasnt in any way undetectable, the Islamic teaching staff were very overt in their discrimination indoctrination and brutality, its just that the Blair and Brown administrations didnt want to know about it.
You have to look between the lines on these issues use the independent and alternative media, look at intelligence websites and see independent reports. Thankfully due to the mobile phone it is getting difficult for European government to keep a full lid on the Islamic rape culture as victims have social media, an some nasty cases are happy slapped anyway by the perpetrators.
Media always tries to spin it, only very few don't, but with sales as is they all tend to rely on click-baitey articles. That's why I just tend to go to government publications for the statistics. I know that the UK media is particularly divisive in a way the Dutch media hasn't reached yet, there are a few attempts however. Again look at the government statistics on rape, why would independent organisations bother to lie, they just report the crimes that get reported. You can't say its difficult to keep the lid on it and at the same time have the statistics show that no lid is being lifted or that the lid doesn't even exist. That's conspiracy level stuff.
If both those countries drop the ball once in a while, why does it have to be refugees for Germany? Why can't Germany just drop the ball, as it is starting to look like. Yet even Isreal, with its massive investment had great trouble with the second Intifada or just last year with loners stabbing or running over people. There is a limit to what you can prevent. Maybe the four in Germany just prevent that limit to an extent.
Even Mossad/Shin Bet and MI5 drop the ball, and those are the best internal security agencies on the planet since the end of the DDR. Try as they might nobody stops them all. Israel still gets attacked frm the inside every now and then, and atrocities like 7/7 occur.
Error and complacency are not the same, humans make errors, bad discipline makes complacency.
Again it is difficult to know which of the two happened in Germany. In truth we will likely not find out for years unless a Paris level attack occurs and German agencies are forced to grovel in public like the French.
The AfD blamed this attack on Merkel for letting the refugees in. If this isn't a clear cut case for AfD thinks refugees=terrorists=dead Germans=blame Merkel for refugees I don't know what is. Blaming just the Muslims isn't any better, it just makes you more racist, the ones most open to radicalization are some of the most secularized Muslims.
Right the AfD is not saying this about refugees. they are saying this about Islamic refugees. Please notice the difference. The Uk has the same difference, there are anti Islaic movement and anti-refugee movements. The two overlap but are not the same:
Anti-refugee arguments = 'they are taking our jobs', 'our country is full', 'social welfare and state medical care are overstretched'.
anti-Islamic refugee arguments = 'we are importing jihad'
AfD might well have anti-immigration policies on top of anti-Islamic policies but the two are in fact separate issues.
Are we talking about the same refugee problem? You know, the one of the Syrian Muslims fleeing there country for Germany? The AfD is using nothing but euphemisms that the nationalist crowd responds to. Most right wing parties tend to say Muslim immigrants, but they still won't let christian Africans crossing from Libya in. Even they don't hold a strict difference, here you have it from the horse's mouth:
Beatrix von Storch, a German MEP, and vice chair for the AfD Party, told Radio 4's The World at One that "it is not possible to let in so many refugees" and "as far we know the terrorist was one of them".
I await your reply to tell me in which part of this sentence she mentions Muslims.
The AfD, Front National and Wilders all lie based on false statistics. These people don't have the answers, they are just the alt-right or breitbart of political parties. We tried having Wilders involved in government and he knew gak all, these are not coherent parties, they are foreigners bad! Ethnic (christian) nationals gud!
I think Peregrine is helping out this part nicely.
Peregrine is always happy to help out if he can bash Christians. Nearly all the political power amongst Eurpean parties is secular, there are few exceptions and most who call themselves Christian are making an ethnic statement not a statement of faith. Christian Democrats is just another very European way of saying 'liberal' and is a secular movement overall. Many centre politic non-chtristians, atheists or agnostics will have common ground with them to the point of representing them in various parliaments.
While Peregrine can get a little overenthusiastic, I think most of us tend to suffer from this from time to time. We discuss stressful topics that involve a good deal of emotion, having said that I want to thank you so far for the civil discussion, we might not agree, but at least we can discuss.
Actually we have a very christian party in parliament that does make a statement of faith. It is however a tiny party with roughly 2% of the vote, yet present every time. I agree that most parties tend to have common ground, but in systems such as France and the UK extreme parties tend to be a bit more problematic if given the opportunity to come to power, as that means it frequently has the majority. In Germany and the Netherlands that is a bit more complicated, but in none of the listed countries it is likely one of those parties will ever gain enough support. That's exactly why they do what they do, call me cynical, but a lot of those parties yell insane or stupid things because they know they will never have to rule, but yelling gives them enough support for a decent paycheck (or in the case of Wilders probably better than decent).
Again with the empty rhetoric. Give me something to work on, evidence the Iceberg is covered in refugee infiltrators. Non of the facts are on your side.
Oh come on now.
Handwave denials. How lazy, how common. How to answer this:
A. In case you are terribly stupid.
No, sorry I don't have access to classified information, or don't want to go to prison by sharing it on Dakka. I will leave you to speculate which is true.
B. In all other instances (which I presume means you).
You don't have/or cant share the facts either for the above reason. Stop placing an uneven burden. You have equal access to what we all have. Press reports, eye witness reports, and inquiring and and analytical brain.
I cant disclose operational details of counter-terrorist statistics, I don't possess, neither do you possess this data. The data we get released by government intelligence sourcing are heavily editted and massaged for propaganda value.
The main tool we have for determining effect is the fact that what we see today hold true with patterns of terrorist and intelligence operations in history, and we do have information on the methods. For example he methodology for Islamic revolution is similar to the methodology for socialist revolution. What worked in Cuba will to some extent work in Europe, though the timescales will be longer as socialism is for all, sharia society is for the Ummah, and Islamification spreads about the same speed of the demographc of the ethnic Moslem population and most Islamists beleive that conversion while it will help is only a minor factor.
We also have historical evidence as to how jihad itsefl operated in the modern age. Iran is a good well documented example, Taliban in Afhanistan etc. Its harder to get a real look into western security agency methodologies but those are also in the public domain if you look. Both from historical counterintelligence methods, CIA in Central America for example, or better yet from terrorist vs western security conflicts that have moved into a post conflict period of openness and healing. The best two examples of this are Northern Ireland and South Africa. These last two conflicts were operated by competent and well funded security agencies and while much remains classified, much is also in the public domain, most notably methodologies.
So all in all. I don't have meaningful data, neither do you. We both have access to information about how terrorists and security agencies work and can see that the patterns of what works from both ends are being replicated by the parties concerned. Remember that as ISIL is linked to a long history of terrorist activities in the middle east the commanders of ISIL will be largely following the methodologies of previous terror agencies. What works/ed for Hamas, Taliban or for that matter Irgun, works for ISIL.
So cut the bullgak of saying unless one has a load of classified counter-terrorist data to spill on Dakka one has no argument.
Also you dont understand the iceberg reference.
The analogy is not an iceberg covered in Islamic infiltrators. The Islamic infiltrators are the iceberg. Take a look at the above picture. How much 'Islamic fundamentalism' do you normally see if we represent Islamic fundamentalism as ice. Jihadist infiltrators don't normally announce themselves, you have find them. Some are better hidden than others.
German state security srutinised the refugees and found that their concerns hold true, jihadists have infiltrated the refugees. This is likely why most are still holed up in detention centres and are not allowed to roam around Germany. They are in effect imprisoned/detained indeinitely.
We found 'only' four was NOT the good news you think it is.
I know you don't have the actual facts and neither do I. I'm just arguing that going on the facts we have is better than stumbling around blind, you get better policy. Of course it comes off as a bit 'lame' that I ask for something to back up your statement you cant acces. But were both arguing the other one is wrong based on those missing or partially facts. Were the pot and the kettle by now. I take issue with the fact that you think all European governments are manipulating data to present refugees as less of a danger, as you would think committing terrorist attacks is hard to conceal. What you're asking of people is to rely on faith, while I'm asking people to look at my partial data displayed against the nation's data and draw their own conclusion. I have extensively studied security and intelligence as part of academia, I'm familiar with what data is available and trends etc. Domestic and even Jihadist terrorism like you say is nothing new. But based on historical trends and what is available, I don't feel the need to overly worry about the refugee influx, a few might slip by, but I consider that the trade-off to helping those refugees. You might not agree with that, but they are here so we have to treat the problem realistically (which for all we know they already do). I got the Iceberg reference, I just made a bad joke Its just that we don't know anything about the iceberg and we can fight all day about how much is under the water, all we can really say is how much is visible, which is four people. And again, we have no idea how many they found as these were the successful ones.
Please also bear in mind it is in the partisan interest of the German government just as it was with New Labour regime in the UK and currently in Sweden to heavily downplay the threat posed.
You quote Gatestone? The 'think thank' run by crazy 'bomb them all' Bolton? They are as conspiracy and fear mongering as you can get. I give you government data and you bring in some conspiracy theory about them manipulating data, while bringing up the one of the biggest actual manipulators. Again here is the data:
Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.) Furthermore, according to Deutsche Welle’s analysis of the report, the number of offenses increased in the first half of 2015 but “stagnated” in the second half, precisely when most of the refugees were arriving and the rumor mill switched into overdrive. And although sexual offenses account for over 25 percent of the rumors on the Hoaxmap, the BKA data showed that only 1 percent of refugee-related crimes fell into the sexual offense category.
How are statistics skewed, we have it on record that there is no increase in reports, you're just grasping at straws saying but they could be, but then so could those of the native pop.
How do you claim I am clutching at straws. I didnt link to the Islamic rape crisis because I didnt need to. No more than I need to post the wiki page on Germany to show i am not talking about a made up fictitious country. The evidence is all around you.
Have some more:
Again you give me right wing crazies. The NY post and muslimstatistics. I give you government data. When we see enable rape culture and rape epidemic, those websites aren't as objective as you think. I am familiar with your last case and it was terrible. However one case doesn't mean there are dozens or hundreds buried by the government. Refugees don't commit more crimes than the regular population, it is about equal.
We should let 1.1 mil people rot because of that chance?? We have had refugees from the Middle-East and Jihadism since the 70's yet it has never been an enormous problem, what makes people believe its going to be one now?
There is one now because of the head in sand denial that is enabling Islamic immigrants to impose their standards where women have grossly inferior status and rights on our society. Those immigranbts who tried that in the 70's were quickly rounded on. We didnt tolerate rape culture because our politics was not infected with progressive liberalism or political correctness. Immigrants from violent third world countries were told that Europe was different. For the most part it worked.
We also didn't import millions in the space of a few weeks and above all Islamic fundamentalists, while definitely there did not see our societies as week and ripe for takeover as the current generation of radical clerics see the west due to the apologism demonstrated by those in European society who refuse to see the threat.
In effect Islamists see Europe as ripe for the taking because of apologists like yourself. You might hold liberal values, and some of them are laudable at face value. These people will exploit that, but once they have a majority, which is the state claim of many clerics they will impose their will and your rights and customs will NOT be respected.
Bending over backwards 'tolerence' only leads to self destruction. You are feeding the wolf and letting it grow.
The two sources are double sourcing of one cleric. This is far from an isolated opinion though.
I don't know what to say, you're arguing about us being weak and rape culture, while only providing the most biased sources to back up these claims. Islamists can certainly try to take over Europe and apologists like me will certainly be called upon to serve our countries (I too have a flair for the dramatic). Nice Huntington-esque world view. Islamists are far and few in between, most are just regular people who try to live their life as best they can. First we were those weak capitalists and now were those weak progressives. I will unfortunately not be around when they achieve this magic majority, as projections show that will be far in the future. I'm not burying my head in the sand anymore than you are. What rights have we lost to enabling Islamic immigrants? The only thing I see is us banning expressions of faith such as Burka's or Burkinis, whatever your thoughts on those may be it still shows you we ban what we find uncomfortable. I'm familiar with radical clerks but unless they say something that is against the law they are protected by free speech. I know some other disgusting people who fall under those same protections such as Neo-Nazi's and Reichsburger. Every group has its crazies and we should take care not to fall into the hands of one group to stay out of the hands of another. Shrieking about made up facts certainly isn't going to help that.
It does sectarian for one reason, it's just to outlet for all the problems they encounter, their justification, most of these young men weren't strict Muslims (drinking, sex, eating pork) to begin with but Radical Islam is their outlet for frustration just like communism used to be. In the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's we had Indonesians from our former colony commting terror attacks to protest there treatment, they were in majority christian. It is almost like colonizing someone, then having a massive transplantation of an entirely different cultural and ethnic group has some effect if not managed properly.
The problem now exists on a different scale, hence the influx of rapes and the political paralysis in dealing with the issue.
The scale is roughly the same or even smaller if we compare it to the violence in the 70's and 80's, ignoring made up facts along the way.
All European nations are guilty of doing less than they should have done to integrate these people, and of course some of the blame should rest on those that are unwilling as well.
Blame the victims.
No, we are all victims of the state's inability to properly form a cohesive social group out of its citizens. I'm not saying its the fault of those murdered nor am I excusing the murderer. In general, we can do better to try and avoid this from repeating.
Yet the amount that goes on and commits these kind of attacks is tiny and not in any way representative of these communities.
That is so wrong. What was very alarming other than the attacks themselves, was that on the day of 7/7 Moselm community leaders on TV refused to condemn the attacks, and the odd one or two who did made wishy washy statements about being against all violence. Also the sympathiser to terrorist ratio is normally very high, got a terrorist, you have x thousand sympathisers also. I dont have the figure for the actual ratio.
This is also a consequence of the fact that the Muslim community leaders we have are in the majority religious leaders we have to import from the Middle East because it requires such a massive amount of study only a child can properly start. Fun fact, most of the imams for the Turkish community in the Netherlands are actually trained and payed by the Turkish state, crazy right. There is also the element of selection bias by the media, what sells better? And the attackers are still not representative of the whole, people may sympathize but at least they don't act. If you want to see some crazy sympathizing just go into the Aleppo or Russian Ambassador threads. We can find a lot of sympathy there for crazy things too. Does that mean all of DakkaDakka condones it?
We have blown this issue out of proportion because it seems very scary to us that we can just be killed by a random angry person. Yet the chance of dying in a car accident is much higher but it doesn't make people less hesitant to drive a car.
Terrorists are out to get us, and they WILL kill us if they can. And I don't live in fear of that. But I do live in a reality of saying 'no jihadists welcome here'. And if it means it takes a while for the Syrian refugees to sit in a detention camp until Germany thinks they have deported all the undesirables then so be it. The German government has decided by their own sovereign will to do exactly that.
In a nutshell the German government doesn't trust all those Syrian refugees to be properly vetted and processed yet. Merkel for all her talk of opening Germany has decided possibly under heavy advisement from the German security services not to release all the Syrians into the national community, at least not yet.
A car does not target me no, but it is still a deadly vehicle that claims many more lives than the occasional terrorist in the West. Its about the trade off, we accepts traffic deaths for economic benefits just as we accept that there are a few terrorists to save hundreds of thousands of refugees. Treating them as an enemy behind our lines will not help to keep them from radicalization by those few terrorists. What the German government does is actual quite standard procedure, it is done regardless of the refugee crisis. Most European countries put these people into detention centres to sort out paperwork. I had a friend from Belarus who spend six years in one of those centres before they finally got it sorted out (deportation as it turned out). Its standards, nothing to due with advisement. That they are easier to monitor in one place is just a happy side effect for the relevant agencies doing shakedowns.
Sure, but I was just mentioning that they did not seem to have a good video of the attacker this time as they arrested the Pakistani first and only almost two days later figured out that it might have been someone else. That's the point I was referring to in this case, apologies if that was unclear.
Your comment was valid either way. Police were not negligent by arresting the wrong man, they acted quickly on fallible eye witness testimony and arrested the wrong man. The police also took caution but didnt automatically presume his guilt allowed the suspect to defend his own reputation and let him go once they were sure he was no longer a suspect. By which time forensic evidence was now available and the search criteria changed.
Arrest immediately based on eye witness info, then switch once scientific info is processed looks to me that the Germans are trying to do what they can when they are able to do it, and are not sitting around.
They came up with a prime suspects identity fairly quickly all told, about as quickly as they could have done. Forensics takes time.
The post-attack reaction appears competent and professional on every level.
I agree, they handled it very well with fair treatment. Someone else in such a situation might have been intimidated to say things they did not want to by authorities. I was just referring to the fact that if they had video evidence of him leaving the truck or shortly after they might have realized it sooner, sadly no information seemed to be available and they resolved it by seemingly finding the other man's ID in the truck.
In this case he left his ID in the truck (apparently). Further information we have gotten is that he looked and inquired into ways to make explosives and sought out IS online.
Very possible. If he left his ID it was a lucky break, but the police waited until they had forensic evidence to tie him to the vehicle.
ID can be planted as a decoy, if it buys critical hours for the suspect to escape so much the better.
Possibly, but the person who the ID belongs to has been missing since Monday. Knowing where he lives and sleeps should enable the comparison of DNA evidence or something else to link him to it. The fact that he still seems to be the main suspect seems to imply the lucky (although very silly) break.
That combined with the firearm sure makes it seem like the intelligence agencies dropped the ball. To make it even worse, he was already supposed to have been deported back to Tunisia but they were unable to.
I thought you were going to use this as your claim for German complacency at the beginning of your post.
First as stated earlier this isnt complacency, after all the German security services did want to deport him. He wasn't overlooked.
Second you aren't being fair. There are a large number of people security services want out of a European country but cannot get rid of as easily as they would have liked.
Take this charming gentleman:
Spoiler:
Early in the Blair years he was clearly a threat an in the press but the government of the time wanted to downplay Islam, which was odd allowing for how vitriolic they could be with other forms of dissent.
When the government did want to act and extradition warrants started to be filed from partner agencies there began a long legal battle to deport Hamza. Hamza was eventually deported after several appeals in 2012, eight years after extradition request was signed. The European Courts also got involved.
It is interesting that the timeline of Hamzas extradition covered a similar period of hacker Gary McKinnon. McKinnon's extradition appeals were exhausted fairly rapidly and the European courts were not sympathetic despite large holes in the extradition claim against him and human rights issues. McKinnon only managed to stay in the UK because his extradition became toxic because of massive popular support and press attention. Hamza had a large press attention and the UK government could not get rid of him fast enough, and the British people were eager to comply with US extradition requests. Yet appeal after appeal and European interference protected him for a long time, human rights issues were raised even though there was no indication the US were a threat to his human rights unlike McKinnon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
Hamza is now in Florence ADX, Colerado supermax, and there he is likely to stay. McKinnon is safe so long as he doesn't enter the USA anytime over the next seventy odd years. I think he can manage.
Yeah I thought about doing so, but decided against it for this part. It is true that it is difficult to deport those who no one wants to accept. The rule of law makes these things very complicated and drawn out, however heavy monitoring of such an individual is sure to continue so they should not have missed that. I'm not sure if immigration wanted to deport him or if it was done so one the advice of intelligence agencies though, I don't think I have read it anywhere clearly one or the other way.
Part of what you mention is about not crossing the line technically and part of it is not having the primary ally and superpower breathing down your neck. Another factor is probably perception, the idea of extraditing a radical Muslim to the U.S. will have most likely conjured up images of Guantanamo once or twice in the minds of those handling those cases. Still, its not always fair and sadly there is not much you can do about it once in the system.
So here we have a man who was clearly looking at a way to attack Germans and acting on this in front of the police, that would assuredly be deported back to Tunisia, perhaps making him even more desperate or rushed to commit this attack, yet he was still walking around as a free man. If that isn't a whole heap of ineptitude and complacency I don't know what is!
As stated above deportation is not a given. Heavily extended and lucrative legal processes get in the way. Terror suspects are cash ins for state funded lawyers, who can claim extra fees from the public purse because they are dealing with security issues. Its a popular junket. Its how people like Cherie lair made their millions. Deportation for everyone else is more open and shut.
Press tend not to report that bit, but as with Abu Hamza sometimes the full, ugly, fee ridden and lucrative process is revealed.
Yes it is very likely that the German security services wanted to remove Anis Amri, but cannot due to technicalities. He was monitored not arrested in a prior sweep and we will never lnow exactly why. whether he was considered too low down the perceived threat order to arrest, or because doing so would expose operations, or monitoring him was expected to lead security to yet unknown figures. It is hard to condemn German intelligence for their hard choices.
And if they hadn't the manpower to continue monitoring him due to having to vet 1.1 million Syrians I have sympathies.
Merkel is blaming the police, wheras she should be blaming the open door policy. Amri's deportation failed due to lack of paperwork from Tunisia, a neat lawyers trick.
True, but a man with a death sentence so to speak will work more quickly to cross things of his bucket-list. While it can take a long time being involved in the legal issues of deportation most likely means increased scrutiny in activities that might be brought to bear in court.
I agree with hard choices, sometimes you just can't give evidence no matter how tragic the consequences will be. Unfortunately trading lives is also one of the jobs of intelligence. Merkel tries to avoid blaming anyone, but with poll numbers as they are and an upcoming election, you can see she is getting uncomfortable hovering between maintaining her position and not losing the electorate. It is a fine line to walk, with most politicians failing to do so. I don't think either deserves too much of the blame, that is for the next generation to work out based on all the hard facts that we lack to give a definitive conclusion.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.
A lot of your posts are.
The case made by our Mr Müller ( Gerd Müller / CSU / BMZ ) how we could help many times more people closer to where they come from instead of having them in the middle of Europe is convincing.
He said it multiple times and I think people like you try their best to ignore the possibilities. I'd rather see € invested long term and with less participants.
"Advocating death" ... you know how silly replies like this are? The choice where you are isn't always yours. The Laws dealing with this are also not set in stone for eternity. The Right to stay can be granted or denied.
But never should it be acceptable to let some "undesirables" go somewhere else and then refuse to take them back. Seems this happens....
To crash a truck into people is a crime.
If someone had his time in jail already, maybe the group "refugee" or "immigrant" isn't the correct tag to put on him?
So following your logic, we should not deny entry to anyone, because the person who may be a risk to the life of humans already here cannot be a problem if part of the group "refugee"...
maybe one Day you realize, the Germans don't argue for "zero refugees" but for keeping the state in control who is running around here.
No one said "let them die out of sight".
But there is no reason to hand out "get free out of jail cards" just to make a few people living in an illusionary world happy.
When you have a million arrive quickly. You lose all control. There is no way you can have vetted one million to propper degree in one to two years.
That's enormous numbers to house, to vett, to support.
It's just not gonna work...
Let correctly vetted and supported batches in, get that batch settled and then only tthen let the next wave in.
Now wr support those we take correctly, control the flow and are safer to boot.
Not madness....
...
Also saying about longer term. That's the exact western problem. We think in a few months, a year, a election. NOT decades, we do not think how somthibf gonna hit down the line and do stuff for political gains at long term expense to ourselves.
We need to start thinking further than next election.
...
Lastly.
Supporting decent, and supportive camps locally, where we generate work, wehere there is opertunity.
This is how we combat migrant flow. And extremists. We give a man a job, not a gun even if that job ain't great, and his home not perfect. We give that man a reason not to take up the gun..
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.
A lot of your posts are.
The case made by our Mr Müller ( Gerd Müller / CSU / BMZ ) how we could help many times more people closer to where they come from instead of having them in the middle of Europe is convincing.
He said it multiple times and I think people like you try their best to ignore the possibilities. I'd rather see € invested long term and with less participants.
"Advocating death" ... you know how silly replies like this are? The choice where you are isn't always yours. The Laws dealing with this are also not set in stone for eternity. The Right to stay can be granted or denied.
But never should it be acceptable to let some "undesirables" go somewhere else and then refuse to take them back. Seems this happens....
To crash a truck into people is a crime.
If someone had his time in jail already, maybe the group "refugee" or "immigrant" isn't the correct tag to put on him?
So following your logic, we should not deny entry to anyone, because the person who may be a risk to the life of humans already here cannot be a problem if part of the group "refugee"...
maybe one Day you realize, the Germans don't argue for "zero refugees" but for keeping the state in control who is running around here.
No one said "let them die out of sight".
But there is no reason to hand out "get free out of jail cards" just to make a few people living in an illusionary world happy.
Here we go again. These people don't want to stay in Turkey and no matter how much money we spend that money will be spend on detaining them there. These people risk their lives cause they see a better future for themselves in Europe. No one willingly risks their life for no reason. The argument of helping people over there always sounds nice, but usually result in the establishment of permanent refugee camps with people having to live out their lives there cause no state wants them. Again there is the example of the Palestinians and several African nations.
Make no mistake, sending these people back to Assad is advocating death. Do you know what his regime does to the opposition? We have documented countless war crimes and disappearances. You can call it silly and use all the cute orkmoticons you want but the fact is Assad will certainly kill a part of those that will be forced to go back. Why do you think Europe grants political asylum? The law is very clear on political asylum, we can't knowingly send people back into danger. Sure a few might be bad people, but we shouldn't demonize the whole group because of these.
Following my logic you should screen refugees and only deny those that pose a danger to our society. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of murderers that might be amongst refugees. I advocate against blanket rejection of the refugees over these few murderers. I think you misunderstood my point.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.
A lot of your posts are.
The case made by our Mr Müller ( Gerd Müller / CSU / BMZ ) how we could help many times more people closer to where they come from instead of having them in the middle of Europe is convincing.
He said it multiple times and I think people like you try their best to ignore the possibilities. I'd rather see € invested long term and with less participants.
"Advocating death" ... you know how silly replies like this are? The choice where you are isn't always yours. The Laws dealing with this are also not set in stone for eternity. The Right to stay can be granted or denied.
But never should it be acceptable to let some "undesirables" go somewhere else and then refuse to take them back. Seems this happens....
To crash a truck into people is a crime.
If someone had his time in jail already, maybe the group "refugee" or "immigrant" isn't the correct tag to put on him?
So following your logic, we should not deny entry to anyone, because the person who may be a risk to the life of humans already here cannot be a problem if part of the group "refugee"...
maybe one Day you realize, the Germans don't argue for "zero refugees" but for keeping the state in control who is running around here.
No one said "let them die out of sight".
But there is no reason to hand out "get free out of jail cards" just to make a few people living in an illusionary world happy.
When you have a million arrive quickly. You lose all control. There is no way you can have vetted one million to propper degree in one to two years.
That's enormous numbers to house, to vett, to support.
It's just not gonna work...
Let correctly vetted and supported batches in, get that batch settled and then only tthen let the next wave in.
Now wr support those we take correctly, control the flow and are safer to boot.
Not madness....
...
Also saying about longer term. That's the exact western problem. We think in a few months, a year, a election. NOT decades, we do not think how somthibf gonna hit down the line and do stuff for political gains at long term expense to ourselves.
We need to start thinking further than next election.
...
Lastly.
Supporting decent, and supportive camps locally, where we generate work, wehere there is opertunity.
This is how we combat migrant flow. And extremists. We give a man a job, not a gun even if that job ain't great, and his home not perfect. We give that man a reason not to take up the gun..
I covered most of your points in my conversation with Orlianth. However to restate, you can't keep those refugees out if they want to come. Were basically paying Turkey to detain them now while they threaten to open the floodgates again. It is just not economically feasible to build a system designed to keep them out. These people don't want to stay in Turkey, they want a future in Europe for their children and no supported refugee camp will ever provide the future Europe can.
So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.
What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.
A lot of your posts are.
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Disciple of Fate has already pointed out that camps don't really work unless we're comfortable with creating a diaspora like the Palestinian refugees who are stuck in said camps because no one will let them in. "Help them over there" is a convenient way of not having to get near the people in need. You're ignoring the fact that the refugees are fleeing Syria because they're getting killed there in the first place (and you want to support one of the guys killing them) and you're ignoring past experiences with giant refugee camps. You don't get to call anyone's posts absurd.
AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
Again, what is your reason for assuming so, what are your indications? Every state should take it seriously, that doesn't mean they didn't make a mistake this time.
German non complacency, outside of Merkel and her policy makers can be seen by.
- vetting of the 1.1 million Syrian refugees to the point where they can provide some statistics for the public indicating that vetting is underway. They likely have far far more statistics than the small soundbite provided.
- The fact that despite the first wave of refugees being just let in, post th Cologne rapes the majority are locked into refugee camps on government land.
I'm speaking about Europe in general. Again the heaviest attacks have been committed by second and third generation nationals. The man in question now has been in Europe since 2011-2012, you're telling me it took him 4 years to work out how to steal a truck?
That isn't how terrorism often works. People have to be persuaded to put their lives on the line, often there is a chain of command and leaders want to keep informed and in control for their own egos mostly as many types of attack are brutally simple.
Terrorists often stall if they think they are being monitored or from lack of opportunity.
It is hard for a most civilians to just kill someone, it crosses the line in ways some people find more difficult than their time playing computer games would lead them to believe.
Many want to be the big man, not the martyr. They want to be important in their own sub-communities. They want to be the gun not the ammo.
Suicide attacks and high risk attacks are normally only easy with populations whose lives are so downtrodden their best chances is in choosing how to die. Due to the excesses and abuses of licving under Israeli occupation this is a natural logical conclusion for many Palestinians. It is less of a conclusion once living in the EU.
Most of the attackers are first generation. Amri included, he entered Europe in 2012 so how is he second or third generation. It is true that many are, which shows a failure of integration.
There are also hundreds of German nationals that went to Syria. Why did these people go if its so great in Germany.
they go to jihad from Europe because Allah wills it, and who cares what the infidel Europeans think. lso for some its just an adventure. Notice these jihadis return and want their benefits and social housing and mobile phones and console games. In fact its often why they return.
Some people just fall outside of the system and feel the need to take out that frustration in this manner.
Dont give me that pissweak excuse. People fed up with society vote for the hard left, or a demagogue like Trump, or joins protests like the 'occupy' movement. They dont go on jihad.
Jihad is not about frustration, jihad is about indoctrination into extreme bigotry to the point that the infidel should be put to death and they join that struggle directly or indirectly.
Again you're relying on some random number. Its like Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns.
Sorry no its not. You dont understand what analysts do. They don't just process data, they also process from a void of data, its called extrapolation, not blind guessing
Some people just fall outside of the system and feel the need to take out that frustration in this manner.
Dont give me that pissweak excuse. People fed up with society vote for the hard left, or a demagogue like Trump, or joins protests like the 'occupy' movement. They dont go on jihad.
Jihad is not about frustration, jihad is about indoctrination into extreme bigotry to the point that the infidel should be put to death and they join that struggle directly or indirectly.
Of course refugees and immigrants should be monitored, but so should the native population. The difficulty is establishing how many the intelligence agencies actually catch compared to the real numbers, but so far we have no evidence of it being a large number.
That is relatively easy. Interpol has a file on everyone, that is common knowledge by the 70's. So they have a file on you, and me. Now natural Europeans of any nationality have a history, there will be some exceptions, but most have birth certificates, medical records tax statements etc etc. It doesn't take much to see if you or I are security threats, and we wont be unless we join dodgy websites or visit extremist organisations or sign up to certain activities organised by said organisations. Start working in a neo-Nazi or revolutionary communist bookshop and you will get flagged quite quickly. Start posting on Stormfront or a Jihadi website and likewise.
I could say that every Dutch or German person I meet is a murderer in disguise. This is why evidence and numbers matter, we have the data to show that no, most of them aren't.
Yet you insist I'm looking at it from a skewed perspective?
Indeed. Mainly becasue you are labouring on a false conclusion based on the one piece of government data you have provided this thread. That only four formerly active jihadis were found in the 1.1 million Syrian refugees.
In fairness to you, you have drawn the soothing conclusion you were supposed to when that propaganda statistic was released.
Its still a skewed perspective, when looking at that number and what it actually represents, and then look at the fact that the German government has decided they cant risk releasing those people into the community you should be able to see that that is ill news not good news.
Here is a better list from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compiled by the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 It has newer data showing it is close to 1 in 100.000 now. Not that much different overall.
Different figures, broadly similar though, but admittedly more recent. There are two dips in the German crime stats in the last decade, both to near zero crime. Methinks this is more to do with missing statistical data than a sudden lovefest.
So you're saying that because these Syrians might possibly commit murders at the same rate as German nationals that this is a problem? Syria and Germany are completely different countries. Lets get your Turkey analogy back. The rate in Turkey is 4 per 100.000, yet it was never mentioned that the Turks in Germany went on murder sprees that were bigger than those of native Germans.
Not mentioned. So we don't know. however in many countries even collecting ethnic based crime statistics is considered devisive. Progressives in the Uk and US have a hissy fit over it frequently, and government sometimes flatly don't include the data to protect against offending sentiments.
It gets worse when rape stats are deliberate skewed as has occured in Sweden to falsify statistics and spare the public debate about the awful state of affairs. Germany has to a lesser extent faced the same temptation and so has the UK. In fact New Labour was notorious for this. It is not supirsing that the two largest known cases of long term ethnic abuses the Birmingham child indictrinations at Islamified schools and the Rotherham mass rapes only got challened not by s revelation that they were occurring but by a change of government to one which would not sweep the excesses under the carpet.
Apologies, I indeed referred to those with a German passport or nationals. It is a smaller problem in Germany than in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, but a problem non the less. The issue I was bringing up is that we don't have clear ways of dealing with those who return, as a lack of evidence (although intelligence agencies frequently know) means we can't convict them for participation in terrorist organizations. Just last Tuesday the Dutch agencies announced that they don't have enough time, people or funds to even keep a proper eye on these nationals, yet we haven't had an attack yet. Is that dumb luck, quite possibly. Has it been dumb luck for Germany so far? Again, possibly.
Again you need to read between the lines. We know a lot about disillusioned jihadis returning to the Uk. Not so much about prosecutions. Imprisoning a jihadi on their return doesnt do much, just further radicalises and hardens them. Prison hardens people and when they come out they will be a serious threat, not a minor threat. So you have to give them life tarrifs, which is hard to do for what you have on them, or let them go.
But look at the emphasis, a lot of information about jihadis finding that they cant get Facebook and have to do the laundry etc etc woe is me. To them jihad sucks. The last thing you want to do is imprison someone like that and harden them. You want to release them to tell their friends back in the their communities how much it sucked to be on jihad away from their creature comforts.
I think this is the message being encouraged.
Yes that is the problem. The issue with terrorism is that it works on such a psychological fear of us as Europeans that it is easy to overreact. I'm not saying you do, but there are plenty of people and media willing to provoke that fear further.
The fear is caused by the atrocities perpetrated, whether mass rapes or bombings or lorry ramming.
Nothing is honestly gained by glossing over the atrocities in order to salve the consciences of the progressives who want to retain the illusion that everything is fine in our tolerant multi-cultural societies.
To ask the hard question: How many Rotherham kids should be raped and discarded to protect the public from the truth that there are serious problems with lack of ethnic integration in the UK. Yes it hyperboric but I want to you try and put a number to it. In a way New Labour did when they allowed the police to shut down angry parents and let paedophile attackers go free because they didn want any ethnic divisions. This is doubly sickening because child rape is the main taboo we have left in our anything goes society.
Of course once they radicalize it might be too late, although heavy surveillance by both social and intelligence groups can provide an avenue to de-radicalize.
You mean contain. You cant de-radicalize, they either stop being radicals of their own accord or they leave or die. Its not a short term problem.
Let in Islamic radicals and you have a long term problem, our political elite in Europe are not set up to handle the long term problems. To them long term means next election, to some next financial quarter.
If not then prison or an institution is always a resort to lock up those to dangerous to function in society. .
If you prison jihadis you have to choose one of three options.
1. Kill them or otherwise allow them to die.
2. Give them life tarrifs.
3. Dedicate a team of intelligence professionals to keep constant tabs on them after release.
European prisons harden the incarcerated. If someone is radicalised and hardened they are a very serious threat.
Again, look at the German rape statistics I quoted, it is not different from the national average..
Forgive me if I missed them but I dont know of any rape statistics you have quoted.
Also note that some European countries have falsified their rape statistics and been caught doing so.
If that is hard to believe look at Rotherham. Sometimes the horrible stories are actually true, and government s have taken thr cowards way out and allowed gross excesses even to the most vulnerable to preserve politically correct dogmas.
Media always tries to spin it, only very few don't, but with sales as is they all tend to rely on click-baitey articles. That's why I just tend to go to government publications for the statistics.
Fair enough, but now you should know better. Our governments do lie, and that isn't tinfoil hat talking, that is flat fact proven because of changes of government releasing changes of policy that allows the truth of excesses to be uncovered. Rotherham and Birmingham again. hough in both those cases the truth revelation was limited, prosecutions have happened and excesses curtailed, but even so these stories have not had full impact, and likely never will.
I know that the UK media is particularly divisive in a way the Dutch media hasn't reached yet, there are a few attempts however.
I dont know. But what do you mean by divisive?
Printing 'right wing lies'
or printing progressive politically correct lies.
The Dutch media has had a taste of how bad it can get, and even had a name for it at the time: 'Education by death' which came to the fore after the murder of Theo van Gogh for daring to practice freedom of expression in the Netherlands. It wasn't just a shooting by a crazy. There is more to it than that.
It appears from our conversation that education by death was shortlived. Many Dutch people don't want to be educated about the true of Islamic radicalism. Otherwise they wouldn't be so hard on Wilders and so easy on Islamic fundamentalism.
Islamic fundamentalists don't want to share Europe with the likes of you and me, they want us to be tolerant, and laugh at our backs when we do. They have no intention of reciprocating. We don't have free speech or right to our traditions, customs or way of life in our own lands if it offends their beliefs. Sharia says so, and they respect Sharia more than our laws and customs; and, if they can, may enact the death penalties on our citizenry for breaking taboos proscribed in Sharia whether Europe embraces Sharia code or not, and whether or not our own law and custom offers protection to the contrary. That is 'education by death'.
Again look at the government statistics on rape, why would independent organisations bother to lie, they just report the crimes that get reported. You can't say its difficult to keep the lid on it and at the same time have the statistics show that no lid is being lifted or that the lid doesn't even exist. That's conspiracy level stuff.
Ok. Please provide them again. Also I will remain sceptical. The claims that European governemnt have been massaging rape statistics is multiply soruced and has been noted in the mainstream press worldwide.
We also have Rotherham to go back on as proof. Yes that isn't in Germany or Sweden but it shows how far a progressive regime in a European country might go to cover up Islamic rape gangs.
Yes I do believe the stories that rape culture is covered up. We have a lot of credible eye witness evidence from victims.
Again it is difficult to know which of the two happened in Germany. In truth we will likely not find out for years unless a Paris level attack occurs and German agencies are forced to grovel in public like the French.
7/7 was as bad as Paris and our government and intelligence services didnt grovel.
Are we talking about the same refugee problem? You know, the one of the Syrian Muslims fleeing there country for Germany?
Sometimes.
Also talking about the issues in broader detail. The rape culture has less to do with the Syrian refugee than the problem as a whole, though there are connexions. Likewise with terror threats.
The AfD is using nothing but euphemisms that the nationalist crowd responds to. Most right wing parties tend to say Muslim immigrants, but they still won't let christian Africans crossing from Libya in.
Not fair. What do you think would happen if the EU was to say to Libyan refugees waiting, 'we will only take the Christians'.
Even they don't hold a strict difference, here you have it from the horse's mouth:
Beatrix von Storch, a German MEP, and vice chair for the AfD Party, told Radio 4's The World at One that "it is not possible to let in so many refugees" and "as far we know the terrorist was one of them".
I await your reply to tell me in which part of this sentence she mentions Muslims.
There are quite reasonable and non racist anti refugee concerns. I mentioned some of the arguments earlier, notably that European countires are already overpopulated, and that our social care system is overburdened.
the main pressure for more immigration comes from three sources. First the bleeding heart liberals or wooly lefties who will not be satisfied unless we cover every piece of land in more housing so that refugees have somewhere to stay. Some of those people are merely naive, others are out and out dogmatised. Corbyn is in the latter category.
The second and real pressure group are business owners who want immigrants to drive down wages. This is for short term personal gain. They don't think that we already have unemployed we can employ, and adding to our population means greater burdens on our infrastructure and welfare systems. But thats tomorrows problems, and the business owners don't care about that, they want cheaper labour now, and more profits now.
The third most insidious source are from political parties who want to encourage immigration to change voter demographics. Those parties like to encourage settlement in specific areas to change vote patterns, and can do so by encouraging housebuilding in those areas and sepoecting who the housebuilding is for. New Labour did this a lot. Its less of a problem in most of the rest of Europe where there is PR.
While Peregrine can get a little overenthusiastic, I think most of us tend to suffer from this from time to time. We discuss stressful topics that involve a good deal of emotion, having said that I want to thank you so far for the civil discussion, we might not agree, but at least we can discuss.
I know you don't have the actual facts and neither do I. I'm just arguing that going on the facts we have is better than stumbling around blind, you get better policy.
Ok. I am not stumbling around blind, and you need not be eirther. You are clearly educated and intelligent. Learn how to analyse, you are not an end user of facts, you are a processor of facts. You can think for yourself. Dont get your opinions from a press release, get your information form a press release and your opinion from your mulling over what you read. Preferably multiple sourced.
And that doesn't mean thinkerz vs sheeple. Analysis is not tinfoil conspiracy, its a natural consequence of the inquiring mind and shounldn't be belittled. Think for yourself. There is football and soap operas and reality TV galore for those who dont. It is why its so important, and that sort of prolefeed has been part of politics since the ludi magni.
If this makes you uncomfortable, perhaps good but start with something easy. Analysis is a major part of history. We have limited info to go by, just slender picking of surviving documentation and what archeologists dig up, and we cant ask the Hittite or Athenian or Saxon governments for data. We have to think for ourselves. Compare what we read and see, look for holes, look for what reports are not saying, reading propaganda for what it is etc etc. There is a lot of assessment, but it isn't guesswork or blind assumption but reasoned conclusion. You will be surprised what we can work out from extrapolation, and yes while we do get bits wrong and theories change our knowledge improves even though events are receeding further in time.
Political analysis is no different. A good analyst can and will assess based on data or a lack of data. Often a void of usable data in an information rich society like our own gives off information of itself. Many analysts make a good rep out of this if they do a good job. You don't need to sit and wait for data on controversial issues like a chick in a nest mouth open waiting to be fed. You can get up and find it yourself. Yes more data is better, but there is a lot to notice just by comparison of known events. If you get good at it you can have a rep for reading a lot of truth out of a little data or reading the kernel of good info hidden in bad data and your opinions will be held with merit.
Of course it comes off as a bit 'lame' that I ask for something to back up your statement you cant acces. But were both arguing the other one is wrong based on those missing or partially facts. Were the pot and the kettle by now.
This is when it becomes the battleground of the mind. Think assess extrapolate, and for the record that doesn't mean agree with me. You can work with the same very limited dataset, asses extrapolate and come to a set of conclusions that is different from my own and discredits my position enough to force me to reassess my theories. If we are working analysis this contrariness is considered a good thing, as we each have evidently different paradigms and by feeding off each others arguments we have a better chance of working out what is really going on.
Too many Dakkaites handwave away analytical opinion, and want to be spoodfed data to swallow, often data that isnt available or is just consumed without through and regurgitated as opinion.
I take issue with the fact that you think all European governments are manipulating data to present refugees as less of a danger, as you would think committing terrorist attacks is hard to conceal.
I didn't say all. It is very evident New Labour UK government did exactly that, I express such as a fact. There is evidence that Sweden and Germany have done so, but that is not conclusive. I have no opinion on other countries in Europe, I havent looked into them much with regards to this issue, except the situation in Hungary, and I do admit t not looking for evidence of rape culture in Hungary, I only took interest in the fact they closed their borders and the consequences of doing so with the EU bureaucracy, which was surprisingly little, and of note because of the EU's post Brexit policy on free movement to and from the UK being inseparable.
Politics is convoluted, but it isn't boring if one learns how to analyse.
Orlanth wrote: That isn't how terrorism often works. People have to be persuaded to put their lives on the line, often there is a chain of command and leaders want to keep informed and in control for their own egos mostly as many types of attack are brutally simple.
What? I thought were were talking about ISIS infiltrating people into the refugees. In that case all that chain of command stuff and persuading someone to risk their life happens in ISIS territory, and the terrorist just has to execute the attack. A delay makes sense if you're talking about a complex plot like 9/11, but this is a plot that can literally be executed in an hour by anyone with a driver's license and a credit card.
Terrorists often stall if they think they are being monitored or from lack of opportunity.
This also doesn't make much sense. How closely do you think they're being monitored, for anyone to stop a plot that can be executed so quickly? And how can there not be an opportunity for a plot like this? All you need is a crowd of 10-20 people, that's something available everywhere, every day. Just drive into a bus stop around commuting time or whatever.
Orlanth wrote: That isn't how terrorism often works. People have to be persuaded to put their lives on the line, often there is a chain of command and leaders want to keep informed and in control for their own egos mostly as many types of attack are brutally simple.
What? I thought were were talking about ISIS infiltrating people into the refugees. In that case all that chain of command stuff and persuading someone to risk their life happens in ISIS territory, and the terrorist just has to execute the attack. A delay makes sense if you're talking about a complex plot like 9/11, but this is a plot that can literally be executed in an hour by anyone with a driver's license and a credit card.
You are missing a factor, or this would be happening on a daily, weekly or at least monthly basis.
There are enough known radicals. Lets gather the data and take a look.
BBC claims there are 850 known British jihadis in Syria about half have returned. Assuming we ca take this report at face value. This means the are enough jihadis to make up to approximately four hundred attacks, and are known to have returned without being imprisoned.
Presumably we still have lorries in the UK and places still unblocked to drive them into crowds, yet there aren't daily ram attacks by jihadis. As we haven't had an attack for a long while, therefore there is some factor stopping there being so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More news
Well done Aus.
Australian police say they have foiled a terror attack planned for Melbourne on Christmas Day.
Five men are in custody after early-morning raids on Friday, Victoria Police chief Graham Ashton said.
Mr Ashton said the threat involved "use of explosives" and other weapons including "knives or a firearm".
The threat was to prominent city locations including Flinders St Station, Federation Square and St Paul's Cathedral, he said.
Mr Ashton said there was no longer a threat to the public.
Orlanth wrote: BBC claims there are 850 known British jihadis in Syria about half have returned.
Didn't you just talk about how the returning people are the ones who are sick of fighting and just want to get back to facebook and a safe place to live? You can't really argue that and simultaneously claim that those 400 people are all serious terrorist threats.
As we haven't had an attack for a long while, therefore there is some factor stopping there being so.
And what could that factor be? There isn't a plausible one, so the only reasonable explanation for the lack of attacks is that there just aren't that many terrorists.
Orlanth wrote: That isn't how terrorism often works. People have to be persuaded to put their lives on the line, often there is a chain of command and leaders want to keep informed and in control for their own egos mostly as many types of attack are brutally simple.
What? I thought were were talking about ISIS infiltrating people into the refugees. In that case all that chain of command stuff and persuading someone to risk their life happens in ISIS territory, and the terrorist just has to execute the attack. A delay makes sense if you're talking about a complex plot like 9/11, but this is a plot that can literally be executed in an hour by anyone with a driver's license and a credit card.
You are missing a factor, or this would be happening on a daily, weekly or at least monthly basis.
There are enough known radicals. Lets gather the data and take a look.
BBC claims there are 850 known British jihadis in Syria about half have returned. Assuming we ca take this report at face value. This means the are enough jihadis to make up to approximately four hundred attacks, and are known to have returned without being imprisoned.
Presumably we still have lorries in the UK and places still unblocked to drive them into crowds, yet there aren't daily ram attacks by jihadis. As we haven't had an attack for a long while, therefore there is some factor stopping there being so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: More news
Well done Aus.
Australian police say they have foiled a terror attack planned for Melbourne on Christmas Day.
Five men are in custody after early-morning raids on Friday, Victoria Police chief Graham Ashton said.
Mr Ashton said the threat involved "use of explosives" and other weapons including "knives or a firearm".
The threat was to prominent city locations including Flinders St Station, Federation Square and St Paul's Cathedral, he said.
Mr Ashton said there was no longer a threat to the public.
Score!
One question....
Why the hell are this jihadi combat veterans in the UK!
Why even let them return. You chose to enlist to fight for terrorists knowing full well what they did and still went. Each and every one is a security threat. Former ISIS especially. They are potential recruiters, killers and effectively served a terrorist country under arms. Treason anyone?
Excuse me if I say you made your bed, now lie in the blood stained dust.
They should not be back home. Sorry your right to have tea and Netflix ain't worth risk posed to UK as a whole.
Probably because there is a substantial difference between "the intelligence agencies have a reasonable belief that this person was involved with ISIS" and "there is enough evidence to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed criminal acts". We have this thing called the rule of law, where the government can not arbitrarily exile someone from the country just because they think the person might be a threat. The additional risk that is a side effect of this is just the price of living in a civilized country where freedom exists.
Orlanth wrote: AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
How many are actually Syrian? I'm seeing a lot of North Africans. This is an economic migration.
Probably because there is a substantial difference between "the intelligence agencies have a reasonable belief that this person was involved with ISIS" and "there is enough evidence to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed criminal acts". We have this thing called the rule of law, where the government can not arbitrarily exile someone from the country just because they think the person might be a threat. The additional risk that is a side effect of this is just the price of living in a civilized country where freedom exists.
Obama didn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to drone US citizens in Yemen and Iraq.
Again, what is your reason for assuming so, what are your indications? Every state should take it seriously, that doesn't mean they didn't make a mistake this time.
German non complacency, outside of Merkel and her policy makers can be seen by.
- vetting of the 1.1 million Syrian refugees to the point where they can provide some statistics for the public indicating that vetting is underway. They likely have far far more statistics than the small soundbite provided.
- The fact that despite the first wave of refugees being just let in, post th Cologne rapes the majority are locked into refugee camps on government land.
Yes, it is the balancing act I mentioned. Merkel has to let in the refugees but also protect the public, she needs to win election so they will juggle both.
The first waves were let in because they had already entered Europe, now we pay Turkey to detain them. But to restate the part you had not managed to reply to. Putting refugees into detention camps is just common practice so the government can deal with their application. They have a curfew and can be outside between certain hours. I had a friend once who had to spend six years in one before they finished his paperwork, and this was in the slow period, not the high influx of these few years.
I'm speaking about Europe in general. Again the heaviest attacks have been committed by second and third generation nationals. The man in question now has been in Europe since 2011-2012, you're telling me it took him 4 years to work out how to steal a truck?
That isn't how terrorism often works. People have to be persuaded to put their lives on the line, often there is a chain of command and leaders want to keep informed and in control for their own egos mostly as many types of attack are brutally simple.
Terrorists often stall if they think they are being monitored or from lack of opportunity.
It is hard for a most civilians to just kill someone, it crosses the line in ways some people find more difficult than their time playing computer games would lead them to believe.
Many want to be the big man, not the martyr. They want to be important in their own sub-communities. They want to be the gun not the ammo.
Suicide attacks and high risk attacks are normally only easy with populations whose lives are so downtrodden their best chances is in choosing how to die. Due to the excesses and abuses of licving under Israeli occupation this is a natural logical conclusion for many Palestinians. It is less of a conclusion once living in the EU.
Most of the attackers are first generation. Amri included, he entered Europe in 2012 so how is he second or third generation. It is true that many are, which shows a failure of integration.
You have to be consistent, if there is a chain of command you should be able to monitor which refugees visit those kinds of circles or websites. And for small attacks you want to rely on refugee infiltrators. For bigger ones you need them to get into contact with domestic cells like those in France. Stalling in the case of refugee infiltrators only means that it is more likely you will be discovered unless you go without that chain of command for years.
Suicide attacks are an interesting point. The most studied radicals tend not to be the ones that commit these sort of attacks. They tend to use the chumps from abroad, which includes Europeans going to Syria. Or those refugees linking up with cells here, of the three suicide bombs in Paris, 2/3 were the two and only infiltrators that were smuggled in. It is not necessarily the case of being downtrodden. More of being put in a situation were you know no one and you can't exactly go back on your actions so its easier to pressure you into it. Of course this differs per conflict, but the most religious ones tend not to be the ones most likely to do this themselves.
If we look at the attacks in Europe so far because of France or the Iranian of second generation in Germany we have a much higher percentage of nationals both in participation and body count, these people grew up here. Yet this percentage is still immensely low, however I will expand on this on the next part.
There are also hundreds of German nationals that went to Syria. Why did these people go if its so great in Germany.
they go to jihad from Europe because Allah wills it, and who cares what the infidel Europeans think. lso for some its just an adventure. Notice these jihadis return and want their benefits and social housing and mobile phones and console games. In fact its often why they return.
Yes but some of them are frustrated by not having great succes in Germany and see this as a way out or adventure. It is a crazy outlet for this frustration granted, but that is why you prey on these people, because before you know it you have convinced them to do something like this. It might seem very attractive at first but they are often very disillusioned. This is were the theory of de-radicalization and it being good to go to Syria comes in. There the see the real cost of their Jihad adventure, instead of not seeing it and being able to commit attacks in Europe before having to confront those costs.
Some people just fall outside of the system and feel the need to take out that frustration in this manner.
Dont give me that pissweak excuse. People fed up with society vote for the hard left, or a demagogue like Trump, or joins protests like the 'occupy' movement. They dont go on jihad.
Jihad is not about frustration, jihad is about indoctrination into extreme bigotry to the point that the infidel should be put to death and they join that struggle directly or indirectly.
Your previous answer kind of undermined this one. If they are such crybabies over losing there creature comforts once there you cant pretend they are hardened warriors putting up with hardship for there religious indoctrinate beliefs. I'm not saying they aren't indoctrinated, which would be silly of me, I'm saying this frustration gives the opening the truly evil people need to exploit them. Once you set them on that path it is very difficult to get them back of as they know they will not be accepted back in society. They keep heading off on the path that their frustration set them off because it got too dark without them noticing to turn back.
Again you're relying on some random number. Its like Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns.
Sorry no its not. You dont understand what analysts do. They don't just process data, they also process from a void of data, its called extrapolation, not blind guessing
Sorry but no, I understand what analysts do. But we both don't have any of that classified data, so you're in essence guessing blindly. I'm relying on what little and possibly flawed evidence there is.
Of course refugees and immigrants should be monitored, but so should the native population. The difficulty is establishing how many the intelligence agencies actually catch compared to the real numbers, but so far we have no evidence of it being a large number.
That is relatively easy. Interpol has a file on everyone, that is common knowledge by the 70's. So they have a file on you, and me. Now natural Europeans of any nationality have a history, there will be some exceptions, but most have birth certificates, medical records tax statements etc etc. It doesn't take much to see if you or I are security threats, and we wont be unless we join dodgy websites or visit extremist organisations or sign up to certain activities organised by said organisations. Start working in a neo-Nazi or revolutionary communist bookshop and you will get flagged quite quickly. Start posting on Stormfront or a Jihadi website and likewise.
But keeping up current records on everyone is a logistical nightmare that they don't have the resources for. If I had any ideas of doing something and knowing frustrated people in person there are many encrypted messaging apps now that security agencies worry about. And like Peregrine said, all it takes now is some money and a drivers license unfortunately.
Soothing words of propaganda? Look at your comments, you're basically saying that everyone of those refugees could be a terrorist in disguise.
He learns! Evidently the German state security is of the same opinion. Which is why they are still locked into a disused airport and similar sites.
See my answer further up, detaining them on sites is normal procedure, we don't want them running around when we still need to process there asylum application.
I could say that every Dutch or German person I meet is a murderer in disguise. This is why evidence and numbers matter, we have the data to show that no, most of them aren't.
Not the same thing.
It sounds similar enough, basically going back on that current data shows the native population to be more dangerous.
Yet you insist I'm looking at it from a skewed perspective?
Indeed. Mainly becasue you are labouring on a false conclusion based on the one piece of government data you have provided this thread. That only four formerly active jihadis were found in the 1.1 million Syrian refugees.
In fairness to you, you have drawn the soothing conclusion you were supposed to when that propaganda statistic was released.
Its still a skewed perspective, when looking at that number and what it actually represents, and then look at the fact that the German government has decided they cant risk releasing those people into the community you should be able to see that that is ill news not good news.
This was not released. These four people all managed to attack! If it was soothing data they could make up some random number they say they caught before anything happened. This is the opposite of propaganda unless you're arguing they let these attacks happen?
Here is a better list from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime compiled by the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 It has newer data showing it is close to 1 in 100.000 now. Not that much different overall.
Different figures, broadly similar though, but admittedly more recent. There are two dips in the German crime stats in the last decade, both to near zero crime. Methinks this is more to do with missing statistical data than a sudden lovefest.
Hard to say, but when you deal with such low number as 10 in a million it is easy for it to fluctuate wildly once in a while.
So you're saying that because these Syrians might possibly commit murders at the same rate as German nationals that this is a problem? Syria and Germany are completely different countries. Lets get your Turkey analogy back. The rate in Turkey is 4 per 100.000, yet it was never mentioned that the Turks in Germany went on murder sprees that were bigger than those of native Germans.
Not mentioned. So we don't know. however in many countries even collecting ethnic based crime statistics is considered devisive. Progressives in the Uk and US have a hissy fit over it frequently, and government sometimes flatly don't include the data to protect against offending sentiments.
It gets worse when rape stats are deliberate skewed as has occured in Sweden to falsify statistics and spare the public debate about the awful state of affairs. Germany has to a lesser extent faced the same temptation and so has the UK. In fact New Labour was notorious for this. It is not supirsing that the two largest known cases of long term ethnic abuses the Birmingham child indictrinations at Islamified schools and the Rotherham mass rapes only got challened not by s revelation that they were occurring but by a change of government to one which would not sweep the excesses under the carpet.
When wanting to get a good perception on crimes committed by what part of the population I find it convenient to look at prison numbers, they frequently include ethnic background, although those numbers are subjected to other issues such as socioeconomics.
I think Sweden has been discussed enough without us having to go over that again. I will reply to Germany further down where you asked for the statistics again. The trouble with alleged cover ups is that again we go into a world where numbers don't matter and the sky is the limit.
Apologies, I indeed referred to those with a German passport or nationals. It is a smaller problem in Germany than in the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, but a problem non the less. The issue I was bringing up is that we don't have clear ways of dealing with those who return, as a lack of evidence (although intelligence agencies frequently know) means we can't convict them for participation in terrorist organizations. Just last Tuesday the Dutch agencies announced that they don't have enough time, people or funds to even keep a proper eye on these nationals, yet we haven't had an attack yet. Is that dumb luck, quite possibly. Has it been dumb luck for Germany so far? Again, possibly.
Again you need to read between the lines. We know a lot about disillusioned jihadis returning to the Uk. Not so much about prosecutions. Imprisoning a jihadi on their return doesnt do much, just further radicalises and hardens them. Prison hardens people and when they come out they will be a serious threat, not a minor threat. So you have to give them life tarrifs, which is hard to do for what you have on them, or let them go.
But look at the emphasis, a lot of information about jihadis finding that they cant get Facebook and have to do the laundry etc etc woe is me. To them jihad sucks. The last thing you want to do is imprison someone like that and harden them. You want to release them to tell their friends back in the their communities how much it sucked to be on jihad away from their creature comforts.
I think this is the message being encouraged.
I agree we should not imprison these people, unless there is clear cut evidence these people have participated in violence. For those who seem to want to commit violence here prison combined with mental help certainly should be put forward. Here we can detain someone indefinitely if they are put up for what we call TBS, which you have to be sentenced to. It is basically institutionalizing those that are deemed too dangerous because of mental, like serial killers, or other problems and unless these people show progress they won't be released as they are a threat to the public. Sometimes TBS makes a mistake and the person that is allowed probation kills someone, but in general the system works.
Yes going back to your point about it sucking, I reach back to my theory. It seems that for many going to Syria dispels any notions of actually wanting to participate further once back.
Yes that is the problem. The issue with terrorism is that it works on such a psychological fear of us as Europeans that it is easy to overreact. I'm not saying you do, but there are plenty of people and media willing to provoke that fear further.
The fear is caused by the atrocities perpetrated, whether mass rapes or bombings or lorry ramming.
Nothing is honestly gained by glossing over the atrocities in order to salve the consciences of the progressives who want to retain the illusion that everything is fine in our tolerant multi-cultural societies.
To ask the hard question: How many Rotherham kids should be raped and discarded to protect the public from the truth that there are serious problems with lack of ethnic integration in the UK. Yes it hyperboric but I want to you try and put a number to it. In a way New Labour did when they allowed the police to shut down angry parents and let paedophile attackers go free because they didn want any ethnic divisions. This is doubly sickening because child rape is the main taboo we have left in our anything goes society.
But that fear is increased incredibly by media attention. Same as how Jaws made everyone terrified of sharks and those sharks in the deep end of the pool. Yet that sense of fear is completely out of proportion with the actual number of attacks. People run red lights constantly yet are afraid of terrorism, while one is a much more deadly habit. We don't have to gloss over the terrible events that do happen, but we don't need to pretend one of those events is waiting around every corner.
To give the hard answer, no information should be covered up and those who do should be punished. At the same time we should try to have a realistic debate on how to solve our problems without creating imaginary ones to solve through hyperbole.
Of course once they radicalize it might be too late, although heavy surveillance by both social and intelligence groups can provide an avenue to de-radicalize.
You mean contain. You cant de-radicalize, they either stop being radicals of their own accord or they leave or die. Its not a short term problem.
Let in Islamic radicals and you have a long term problem, our political elite in Europe are not set up to handle the long term problems. To them long term means next election, to some next financial quarter.
But this goes back to our discussion about those being disillusioned in Syria and wanting to go back. I feel like we should establish what we mean as the threshold of radicalized. I consider it going to Syria but you seem to consider committing violence, fair enough. Those that already committed violence should be imprisoned and attempted to rehabilitate, if not than our system has a means to hold these people for life. I think this is something we have to get used to, violent individuals who can't be rehabilitated and some states still need to adapt to that ever present reality.
If not then prison or an institution is always a resort to lock up those to dangerous to function in society.
If you prison jihadis you have to choose one of three options.
1. Kill them or otherwise allow them to die.
2. Give them life tarrifs.
3. Dedicate a team of intelligence professionals to keep constant tabs on them after release.
European prisons harden the incarcerated. If someone is radicalised and hardened they are a very serious threat.
i think were starting to go into circles. Again we have to decide what the point of no return is for these people and decide on the options accordingly.
Again, look at the German rape statistics I quoted, it is not different from the national average..
Forgive me if I missed them but I dont know of any rape statistics you have quoted.
Also note that some European countries have falsified their rape statistics and been caught doing so.
If that is hard to believe look at Rotherham. Sometimes the horrible stories are actually true, and government s have taken thr cowards way out and allowed gross excesses even to the most vulnerable to preserve politically correct dogmas.
I posted them three times but it might be hard to see as I put them in a qoute, here it is without: Recent numbers from Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA) suggest that the influx of refugees into the country this fall had a low impact on crime numbers relative to the natural uptick that would happen with any population increase: Although the number of refugees in the country increased by 440 percent between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees only increased by 79 percent. (The number of crimes against refugees increased as well.) Furthermore, according to Deutsche Welle’s analysis of the report, the number of offenses increased in the first half of 2015 but “stagnated” in the second half, precisely when most of the refugees were arriving and the rumor mill switched into overdrive. And although sexual offenses account for over 25 percent of the rumors on the Hoaxmap, the BKA data showed that only 1 percent of refugee-related crimes fell into the sexual offense category.
Lets go over that article. It mentions large scale sexual assault yet it only has the case of Cologne to back this up and it goes on further to cite a tabloid. Again this is not really based on evidence but rumours and one event. Of course we should investigate if these rumours have a point. But statistical data of other European countries with refugees compared to Germany and Sweden don't show much difference.
Media always tries to spin it, only very few don't, but with sales as is they all tend to rely on click-baitey articles. That's why I just tend to go to government publications for the statistics.
Fair enough, but now you should know better. Our governments do lie, and that isn't tinfoil hat talking, that is flat fact proven because of changes of government releasing changes of policy that allows the truth of excesses to be uncovered. Rotherham and Birmingham again. hough in both those cases the truth revelation was limited, prosecutions have happened and excesses curtailed, but even so these stories have not had full impact, and likely never will.
Of course they lie at times, but it is difficult to fudge the numbers on official police reports unless we start arguing that they ignore victims that come to them to further the political agenda. So far we have come up with two cases, which are horrible, in the UK that are somehow meant to be representative of Europe as a whole. Besides even if those reports aren't fully accurate there is also something to say for under reporting of rape and sexual assault in the native population, the numbers just aren't that different.
I know that the UK media is particularly divisive in a way the Dutch media hasn't reached yet, there are a few attempts however.
I dont know. But what do you mean by divisive?
Printing 'right wing lies'
or printing progressive politically correct lies.
The Dutch media has had a taste of how bad it can get, and even had a name for it at the time: 'Education by death' which came to the fore after the murder of Theo van Gogh for daring to practice freedom of expression in the Netherlands. It wasn't just a shooting by a crazy. There is more to it than that.
It appears from our conversation that education by death was shortlived. Many Dutch people don't want to be educated about the true of Islamic radicalism. Otherwise they wouldn't be so hard on Wilders and so easy on Islamic fundamentalism.
Islamic fundamentalists don't want to share Europe with the likes of you and me, they want us to be tolerant, and laugh at our backs when we do. They have no intention of reciprocating. We don't have free speech or right to our traditions, customs or way of life in our own lands if it offends their beliefs. Sharia says so, and they respect Sharia more than our laws and customs; and, if they can, may enact the death penalties on our citizenry for breaking taboos proscribed in Sharia whether Europe embraces Sharia code or not, and whether or not our own law and custom offers protection to the contrary. That is 'education by death'.
As in covering a large amount of the political spectrum, that almost automatically results in divisive reporting going from one to the other end, not by design on each other, just by what they choose to cover. Our larger media tends to hover more around the center left with only small publications really going outside of this for now.
Theo van Gogh's murder was terrible, to be fair even a large amount of the Dutch thought he was using freedom of speech to make disgusting things when he was still alive. On the other end we have a left winger killing Pim Fortuyn, our Trump for using his free speech that was equally disturbing. We have two examples of ideologically motivated murder, one by the radical left wing and one by a radical Muslim.
Our problem isn't so much with Wilders 'telling it as it is'. It has more to do with advocating camps and deporting all Muslims even those that are Dutch. We had him leading chants of "less Moroccans here", you know those third generation Dutch Moroccans. I will let you fill in the blanks on how they will achieve less of them here. Besides that his economic ideas are of Trump level dreams of the unrealistic. Wilders just doesn't have a grasp on reality, he is just the counter culture party.
We have to combat sharia as it conflicts with our legal system, as such we are doing a good job and advocates for introducing that system are far and few in between usually coming from Belgium to the Netherlands.
Again look at the government statistics on rape, why would independent organisations bother to lie, they just report the crimes that get reported. You can't say its difficult to keep the lid on it and at the same time have the statistics show that no lid is being lifted or that the lid doesn't even exist. That's conspiracy level stuff.
Ok. Please provide them again. Also I will remain sceptical. The claims that European governemnt have been massaging rape statistics is multiply soruced and has been noted in the mainstream press worldwide.
We also have Rotherham to go back on as proof. Yes that isn't in Germany or Sweden but it shows how far a progressive regime in a European country might go to cover up Islamic rape gangs.
Yes I do believe the stories that rape culture is covered up. We have a lot of credible eye witness evidence from victims.
I provide them a bit up. Yet all you can provide for massaging facts is right wing newspapers who don't go into the fact that regular rape statistics are also underrepresented. If both have a real number to report what's to say they aren't still equally close? Its a bit circular again thoug.
Again it is difficult to know which of the two happened in Germany. In truth we will likely not find out for years unless a Paris level attack occurs and German agencies are forced to grovel in public like the French.
7/7 was as bad as Paris and our government and intelligence services didnt grovel.
Your agencies might have been preforming better or it was judged that 7/7 happened due to no attributable flaw in the British system. France was just on a whole other level of amateur actions that they could not hide from the public after this. The fact is Berlin is not anywhere near the level of London or France, so even if the German process is somehow flawed they might not feel pressured to come out yet.
Are we talking about the same refugee problem? You know, the one of the Syrian Muslims fleeing there country for Germany?
Sometimes.
Also talking about the issues in broader detail. The rape culture has less to do with the Syrian refugee than the problem as a whole, though there are connexions. Likewise with terror threats.
Again it is difficult to prove this rape culture and it has been argued that we have very many of those same problems. My reference to discussing the same problem was more aimed at the later AfD quote though.
The AfD is using nothing but euphemisms that the nationalist crowd responds to. Most right wing parties tend to say Muslim immigrants, but they still won't let christian Africans crossing from Libya in.
Not fair. What do you think would happen if the EU was to say to Libyan refugees waiting, 'we will only take the Christians'.
That's not what I meant, I meant that parties such as those of Wilders, the AfD and Front National seem to have more problems with Muslim refugees than Christian. Our current governments try to be consistent in their approach however flawed one might think it is.
Even they don't hold a strict difference, here you have it from the horse's mouth:
Beatrix von Storch, a German MEP, and vice chair for the AfD Party, told Radio 4's The World at One that "it is not possible to let in so many refugees" and "as far we know the terrorist was one of them".
I await your reply to tell me in which part of this sentence she mentions Muslims.
There are quite reasonable and non racist anti refugee concerns. I mentioned some of the arguments earlier, notably that European countires are already overpopulated, and that our social care system is overburdened.
the main pressure for more immigration comes from three sources. First the bleeding heart liberals or wooly lefties who will not be satisfied unless we cover every piece of land in more housing so that refugees have somewhere to stay. Some of those people are merely naive, others are out and out dogmatised. Corbyn is in the latter category.
The second and real pressure group are business owners who want immigrants to drive down wages. This is for short term personal gain. They don't think that we already have unemployed we can employ, and adding to our population means greater burdens on our infrastructure and welfare systems. But thats tomorrows problems, and the business owners don't care about that, they want cheaper labour now, and more profits now.
The third most insidious source are from political parties who want to encourage immigration to change voter demographics. Those parties like to encourage settlement in specific areas to change vote patterns, and can do so by encouraging housebuilding in those areas and sepoecting who the housebuilding is for. New Labour did this a lot. Its less of a problem in most of the rest of Europe where there is PR.
But every time something like this happens they point at refugees in general and not Muslim refugees as you said. They generalize and talk around the subject so as not to get caught in the aha moments, but we all know what they are really saying: refugees=terrorists. European countries are not full and I can write a book on why European social systems are collapsing, suffice to say that generation X and the babyboomers were living on checks the birth rate wasn't going to be able to cash. There just isn't enough money to keep up those social systems regardless of refugees and at least these refugees can help with some of these demographic problems to ensure the millennials don't have to work until they are 90 to fix the budget hole made by overgenerous social systems. Here we use the immigrant where there used to be Poles that are now too expensive. these are jobs no Dutch person wants to do. When we tried to make them do those jobs as they were on unemployment there was such an uproar from them we had to cancel, which is freaking crazy. We offered them jobs, but they would rather stay in unemployment!!! I can't really comment on voter demographic a both the German and Dutch national system works with multiple parties and as such any result of immigration of elections will be negligible at best. I know it is easier in the UK system to influence the national level on the local one, but that is a very specific issue.
I know you don't have the actual facts and neither do I. I'm just arguing that going on the facts we have is better than stumbling around blind, you get better policy.
Ok. I am not stumbling around blind, and you need not be eirther. You are clearly educated and intelligent. Learn how to analyse, you are not an end user of facts, you are a processor of facts. You can think for yourself. Dont get your opinions from a press release, get your information form a press release and your opinion from your mulling over what you read. Preferably multiple sourced.
And that doesn't mean thinkerz vs sheeple. Analysis is not tinfoil conspiracy, its a natural consequence of the inquiring mind and shounldn't be belittled. Think for yourself. There is football and soap operas and reality TV galore for those who dont. It is why its so important, and that sort of prolefeed has been part of politics since the ludi magni.
If this makes you uncomfortable, perhaps good but start with something easy. Analysis is a major part of history. We have limited info to go by, just slender picking of surviving documentation and what archeologists dig up, and we cant ask the Hittite or Athenian or Saxon governments for data. We have to think for ourselves. Compare what we read and see, look for holes, look for what reports are not saying, reading propaganda for what it is etc etc. There is a lot of assessment, but it isn't guesswork or blind assumption but reasoned conclusion. You will be surprised what we can work out from extrapolation, and yes while we do get bits wrong and theories change our knowledge improves even though events are receeding further in time.
Political analysis is no different. A good analyst can and will assess based on data or a lack of data. Often a void of usable data in an information rich society like our own gives off information of itself. Many analysts make a good rep out of this if they do a good job. You don't need to sit and wait for data on controversial issues like a chick in a nest mouth open waiting to be fed. You can get up and find it yourself. Yes more data is better, but there is a lot to notice just by comparison of known events. If you get good at it you can have a rep for reading a lot of truth out of a little data or reading the kernel of good info hidden in bad data and your opinions will be held with merit.
I am analysing the data we have and rest assured I'm extensively trained in the practice. We just take different conclusions from the data we don't have and that is fine, eventually time will prove one of us wrong. I'm just sourcing the best available which is government and police data.
Of course it comes off as a bit 'lame' that I ask for something to back up your statement you cant acces. But were both arguing the other one is wrong based on those missing or partially facts. Were the pot and the kettle by now.
This is when it becomes the battleground of the mind. Think assess extrapolate, and for the record that doesn't mean agree with me. You can work with the same very limited dataset, asses extrapolate and come to a set of conclusions that is different from my own and discredits my position enough to force me to reassess my theories. If we are working analysis this contrariness is considered a good thing, as we each have evidently different paradigms and by feeding off each others arguments we have a better chance of working out what is really going on.
Too many Dakkaites handwave away analytical opinion, and want to be spoodfed data to swallow, often data that isnt available or is just consumed without through and regurgitated as opinion.
I realize very well that were not going to agree with each other, that much was clear when we took hours to write responses. We just debate why we come to different conclusions and let anyone who is still reading this decide which argument they find more compelling.
I take issue with the fact that you think all European governments are manipulating data to present refugees as less of a danger, as you would think committing terrorist attacks is hard to conceal.
I didn't say all. It is very evident New Labour UK government did exactly that, I express such as a fact. There is evidence that Sweden and Germany have done so, but that is not conclusive. I have no opinion on other countries in Europe, I havent looked into them much with regards to this issue, except the situation in Hungary, and I do admit t not looking for evidence of rape culture in Hungary, I only took interest in the fact they closed their borders and the consequences of doing so with the EU bureaucracy, which was surprisingly little, and of note because of the EU's post Brexit policy on free movement to and from the UK being inseparable.
Politics is convoluted, but it isn't boring if one learns how to analyse.
I will stop here for tonight....
Hungary is a very different case. It is one of the most extreme outliers in Europe with a very right wing government. If anyone in Europe manipulates statistics it is most likely Hungary who has been trying to curb the freedom of the press.
EU bureaucracy might be supranational on some levels. But it is far too small to handle what it is assigned to do so it usually leaves more difficult problems up to the leading nations in the EU such as the Eurozone Crisis and the Refugee influx. Brexit is quite different because it is not a temporary suspension of the core EU values, it is the UK pondering out loud if it can have its cake and eat it too which is why the EU is so involved. Cards on the table, I'm pro EU as you will have likely guessed. But call me cynical, it is mighty convenient to have the EU as an attack dog on Brexit issues so close to major elections where you don't really want to be seen as that party bashing the democratic process over there because you don't agree with it (voters might get the idea you don't like the process as much when it doesn't go your way).
Orlanth wrote: AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
How many are actually Syrian? I'm seeing a lot of North Africans. This is an economic migration.
Going on rough numbers most of them are Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis. People coming into the EU from Kosovo and Albania in Europe outnumber those from Africa almost two to one. So it is not as significant as you might think. Of course a lot that use the boat from North Africa are also the refugees from conflict looking for a route in now that Turkey clamped down on the 'easier' crossing to Greece. Its just that those North Africans get an inordinate amount of media attention because their boats tend to sink once every while creating an inflated view.
You can find some good info here from august: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/number-of-refugees-to-europe-surges-to-record-1-3-million-in-2015/
Automatically Appended Next Post: Important thing to add from that research for those claiming we do too much:
Although Europe has received a large number of Syrian asylum seekers since the Syrian conflict began, only about one-in-ten displaced Syrians worldwide are living in Europe. The vast majority is internally displaced within Syria or is living as refugees in countries that border Syria.
Sites like amnesty and the EU all have numbers for Syrian refugees and where they are, it is quite easy to find that Europe is not taking in an inordinate amount of people.
ZergSmasher wrote: This is why those European countries need to stop taking in more of those refugees. They're practically inviting radical Muslim terrorists into their countries where they can then run amok. If Germany had just said no to those refugees, 12 people would likely still be alive today.
They'd also be alive today if you lot hadn't been mass murdering muslims for decades now.
Muslims have been mass murdering infidels for centuries if you want to go down the "nuh uh, you started it!" route.
Your statement is also a perfect example of selective application of transitive guilt.
Nice buzzword. What's the buzzword for not being able to understand cause and effect?
It gets worse when rape stats are deliberate skewed as has occured in Sweden to falsify statistics and spare the public debate about the awful state of affairs.
You're going to have to provide a very good citation to prove that claim or I'm just going to assume that you're talking out your ass again like the last three times this BS showed up.
Orlanth wrote: AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
How many are actually Syrian? I'm seeing a lot of North Africans. This is an economic migration.
Probably because there is a substantial difference between "the intelligence agencies have a reasonable belief that this person was involved with ISIS" and "there is enough evidence to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed criminal acts". We have this thing called the rule of law, where the government can not arbitrarily exile someone from the country just because they think the person might be a threat. The additional risk that is a side effect of this is just the price of living in a civilized country where freedom exists.
Obama didn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to drone US citizens in Yemen and Iraq.
Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive?
There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.
We end them same as any scumbag terrorists.
Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.
Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive?
There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.
We end them same as any scumbag terrorists.
Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.
There is no due process, either. You just believe your government, with all its long history of proven lying, cheating and murdering, when it declares them enemies and kills them.
Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive?
There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.
We end them same as any scumbag terrorists.
Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.
There is no due process, either. You just believe your government, with all its long history of proven lying, cheating and murdering, when it declares them enemies and kills them.
Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less.
The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...
Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive? There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.
We end them same as any scumbag terrorists. Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.
There is no due process, either. You just believe your government, with all its long history of proven lying, cheating and murdering, when it declares them enemies and kills them.
Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less. The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...
Well, unless they're foreign aid workers, in which case there is a high likelihood of them being near a frontline and in Syria.
Also, visiting a country in the midst of a civil war may not be advisable but it is not illegal. Unless the government has evidence of this person engaging in fighting then there is no justification for killing them, and certainly not until they present that evidence in a court of law where it can be examined and questioned.
CptJake wrote: Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.
Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.
Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.
It absolutely is. There is zero requirement to check nationality before pulling a trigger or pushing a button.
Where you are confused (and maybe it is because I was not clear) is that I am talking about an area of operations the US military (or other agencies) are authorized to conduct military operations. Remember 'the American Taliban' John Walker Lindh? The guys who wounded and captured him could as easily have capped him during the battle of Qala-i-Jangi. If he had died of wounds or been out right killed there would have been zero legal issues. He chose to arm himself and fight against US personnel in a conflict zone. He was lucky he was not killed, and when IDed as a US citizen found his way into a fed pen.
In another case, Adam Gadahn got himself capped. He was not specifically targeted, but he was in a target that got hit. Again, no legal issues what so ever.
What legal issues do you see in those? Are you suggesting nationalities of targets need to be checked before our guys shoot?
We used to hang traitors who assisted other forces against our own country. Now people wring their hands about even firing upon such people even in combat or running supplies to terrorists.
Howard A Treesong wrote: We used to hang traitors who assisted other forces against our own country. Now people wring their hands about even firing upon such people even in combat or running supplies to terrorists.
We also used to force people to undergo hormone therapy for being gay, what's your point? That we should drop our pursuit of the right to justice and law just because someone is doing something detrimental to our country? Murder is detrimental to our country yet we still require the state to prove that someone is guilty, in an impartial courtroom, before they enact punishment.
CptJake wrote: Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.
Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.
Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.
When was the declaration of war?
The 4th Amendment would like to slap you in the ass and tell you its raining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: We used to hang traitors who assisted other forces against our own country. Now people wring their hands about even firing upon such people even in combat or running supplies to terrorists.
jhe90 wrote: If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them. .
Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?
Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants? How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?
Because hey in 30 days, it does.
Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?
Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?
So you're saying that it was acceptable for the IRA to bomb barracks as the people they were blowing up were, in their own worldview and with no oversight, their enemy?
The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.
CptJake wrote: Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.
Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.
Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.
When was the declaration of war?
The 4th Amendment would like to slap you in the ass and tell you its raining.
Stupid comment. The closest thing we've had to a declaration of war since WW2 is congress authorizing military force, which they absolutely did in these cases.
Or are you gonna now claim every military action we've been involved in since WW2 is a war crime? If that is your argument, we'll agree to disagree.
The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.
And what UK armed forces are currently deployed in Syria?
The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.
And what UK armed forces are currently deployed in Syria?
You have had planes conduct bombing runs in Syria, and some pretty reliable sources put UK SOF on the ground as well...
CptJake wrote: Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.
Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.
Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.
When was the declaration of war?
The 4th Amendment would like to slap you in the ass and tell you its raining.
Stupid comment. The closest thing we've had to a declaration of war since WW2 is congress authorizing military force, which they absolutely did in these cases.
Please cite where Congress authorized a declaration of war. Thats the only thing permitted in the Constitution.
Please show me where the you received a judge's warrant for execution.
You're literally arguing the US government can murder US citizens for no needed legal justification.
Thats not a situation we've had before.
Or are you gonna now claim every military action we've been involved in since WW2 is a war crime?
Nope. The President didn't order hits on US citizens previously either. (ok maybe Nixon... )
Would it have been legal for the military to specifically shoot Jane Fonda?
jhe90 wrote: If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.
Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?
Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?
Because hey in 30 days, it does.
Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?
Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?
can you restate as I am unsure what you are asking.
saying that Trump, no Trump does not change someone with a gun on Syria firing on you or allies is a enemy... the combatent status is consitant
Thats self defense and not what we're talking about.
What if the president decides to drone someone in Pakistan (real life) how about Pickadilly Circus?
Howard A Treesong wrote: We used to hang traitors who assisted other forces against our own country. Now people wring their hands about even firing upon such people even in combat or running supplies to terrorists.
We also used to force people to undergo hormone therapy for being gay, what's your point? That we should drop our pursuit of the right to justice and law just because someone is doing something detrimental to our country? Murder is detrimental to our country yet we still require the state to prove that someone is guilty, in an impartial courtroom, before they enact punishment.
If you capture them then they should go on trial, I'm not suggesting we treat them inhumanely. But this idea we can drop bombs on some terrorists but not on others because one of them might be a citizen of our country is a bit ridiculous. Once you take to the field as an enemy combatant you should be treated as one of them for the purposes of engagement.
Orlanth wrote: BBC claims there are 850 known British jihadis in Syria about half have returned.
Didn't you just talk about how the returning people are the ones who are sick of fighting and just want to get back to facebook and a safe place to live? You can't really argue that and simultaneously claim that those 400 people are all serious terrorist threats.
Dear Peregrine, surprise me by thinking through your reply this time.
Not all of the four hundred odd returnees will be sick of jihad, and for there to be even over eight hundred in Syria means there are more in the UK who don't want to make the trip.
However you look at it there are plenty of Islamic fundamentalists in the UK right now that are prepared to kill infidel.
Now there are plenty of lorries to steal in the UK. and plenty of gatherings of people who are not behind protected barriers. If it was as easy as get in lorry drive through infidel and martyr oneself for 72 virgins, it would be happening. A lot.
So, I put the point back to you that you keep evading. there is SOMETHING stopping that, some factor not in the public eye. What could it be? Fear of monitoring, cowardice, lack of commitment, what? And it has to account for a population of several hundreds who are willing to travel illegally to Syria at their own expense knowing full well from the UK press coverage that SAS snipers are hunting them and Russians are happy to cluster bomb them, and they DON'T want to fall into the hands of Assad's lads alive. It takes a lot more effort to go on jihad to Syria, let alone cost, than it would to aquire a lorry and splat some shoppers.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that somehow just taking a lorry and doing an attack is more problematic/difficult than it sounds.
Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive?
There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.
We end them same as any scumbag terrorists.
Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.
There is no due process, either. You just believe your government, with all its long history of proven lying, cheating and murdering, when it declares them enemies and kills them.
Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less.
The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...
Funny you said that. Just read news of random american woman who went there for holiday. Gourgeous pictures. Would be nice place to visit if lt was safer.
It's dark in here...... it's getting too warm......where is my river of wine.......where are my virgins........Mohammed Atta? Is that you I hear?.......
Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less.
The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...
Funny you said that. Just read news of random american woman who went there for holiday. Gourgeous pictures. Would be nice place to visit if lt was safer.
Here we go again.These people don't want to stay in Turkey
Maybe glorious Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP aren't a positive factor and the people would stay if the conflicts end was at a future not too far.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey and no matter how much money we spend that money will be spend on detaining them there.
If everyone in the USA wants to live in your home town, would you also say it is their choice to come and stay or do you want to have some part in this decision?
The wants of foreign nationals are not the main decisive factor. My home , my rules. Your home , your rules.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people risk their lives cause they see a better future for themselves in Europe.
What if their idea of their life here isn't coming true? Disenfranchised and a good recrutement pool for criminlas and extremists most likely...
A better future is a reason to immigrate, but it isn't seeking refuge from war. So either they are threathened by death ( some sort of war going on ) or they just look for a better place to be and this Planet is a big place. You don't have to pick Europe....
Lots of empty areas in the USA and Russia. Maybe the UK wants the people from its former colonies , or france or spain, portugal, the netherlands etc.?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
No one willingly risks their life for no reason. The argument of helping people over there always sounds nice, but usually result in the establishment of permanent refugee camps with people having to live out their lives there cause no state wants them.
Our idea, i mena the idea many in my country are running with isn't permanent camps but camps until the conflict ends. And we live in the middle of europe, we had enough conflicts here to know they don't have to be permanent.
We also repopulated cities after conflicts but on terms made by those who offer a place, not on terms imagined by those who want to come.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again there is the example of the Palestinians and several African nations.
Make no mistake, sending these people back to Assad is advocating death.
Why do we have to spent good tax money if we just have to ask you who is threathened by death and thus granted asyl?
maybe the real cases aren't that many? The numbers i have seen a low %, single digit. Only a few countries are so bad you almost offer asyl to most of them.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do you know what his regime does to the opposition? We have documented countless war crimes and disappearances.
How many leaders are still in charge if we make all of them responsible? 50%?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
You can call it silly and use all the cute orkmoticons you want but the fact is Assad will certainly kill a part of those that will be forced to go back.
Good. I'll heed your request and add some cute orkmoticons and I am calling it silly too.
Always a pleasure to serve a request.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why do you think Europe grants political asylum?
Lets see... maybe the wars we had?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
The law is very clear on political asylum, we can't knowingly send people back into danger. Sure a few might be bad people, but we shouldn't demonize the whole group because of these.
Identify the criminals and extremists and sort them out is demonizing?
What type of Danger is enough to send no one there? Bad perspectives? a hard life without luxuries? lots of work?
Germany already has ~170.000 who aren't sent anywhere...so who is deporting people to their deaths here?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Following my logic you should screen refugees and only deny those that pose a danger to our society. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of murderers that might be amongst refugees. I advocate against blanket rejection of the refugees over these few murderers. I think you misunderstood my point.
In this case, about 530 persons shouldn't be in Germany. But they are. Because Laws kick in when the crime happened.
So , your suggestion how to remove possible evildoers before they get to act?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
However to restate, you can't keep those refugees out if they want to come.
Yes we can.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were basically paying Turkey to detain them now while they threaten to open the floodgates again.
Turkey is lead by someone who is playing a dangerous game and the moment we have people with balls in charge is the time when threats from Turkey will cease.
Erdogans Turkey cannot solve the problems because they are part of it. We should give them nothing ( just send anyone back they try to "open the floodgate" for ) until they change their ways.
Lets move all the 60 mio refugees the UN lists to turkey. to make a point.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
It is just not economically feasible to build a system designed to keep them out.
But its is. As explained by Mr Müller.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey, they want a future in Europe for their children and no supported refugee camp will ever provide the future Europe can.
The future Europe provides is?
Maybe we have no future to offer?
Don't get me wrong, i'd happily accept if Europe could save everyone, provide jobs for eyery human beeing and housing and welfare and and.. but IMO thats far beyond our capabilities. We are at best one link in a chain.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.
I do but if you want to believe I don't thats fine too.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Disciple of Fate has already pointed out that camps don't really work unless we're comfortable with creating a diaspora like the Palestinian refugees who are stuck in said camps because no one will let them in.
Palestinians are in camps run by Germany? Europe?
Don't you think a little research could dig up some success ?
hypothetical: if the netherlands sunk to the bottom of the sea, europe would find a new place for the people and won't push them around or keep em in camps for their whole life.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Help them over there" is a convenient way of not having to get near the people in need. You're ignoring the fact that the refugees are fleeing Syria because they're getting killed there in the first place (and you want to support one of the guys killing them) and you're ignoring past experiences with giant refugee camps.
Dear Mr potemkin, i not going to buy your village, sincerly 1hadhq.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't get to call anyone's posts absurd.
Everbody gets to.
Its not like some arguments are less well thought out by fellow dakkanauts.
He said absurd, got his own absurd in return. Just kicking the Ball into his half.
He got as far as Paris before anyone was looking for him. Traveled to the south of France overland, past all those sleepy French police. italian police were awake and doing searches of public transport.
He was supposedly stopped in a routine search. I doubt Italy routinely searches bus stops any more than anyone else.
My guess is that CCTv at major transport terminals picked him up as footage was sifted through, and police were dispatched to potential destinations.
He got off at the last stop, possibly because he saw police at prior bus stops, possibly because it was his intended destination. Then when he had to get off, he tried to talk his way out then pulled a gun and tried to shoot his way out.
Italian police are routinely armed, so nothing to draw on there, but I don't think this was an accidental find from a routine search. Amri likely got dragnetted.
Fether is dead, thats the main thing. Would have been nice to take him alive though.
Orlanth wrote: AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy. 1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
How many are actually Syrian? I'm seeing a lot of North Africans. This is an economic migration.
Some. On the list of people who are meant to leave Syrians make 4th place, so even they aren't all fleeing from threats of death...
Beeing from Syria means your chances are good. North Africa however, especially Tunisia where the lorry driver was from, and you are looking at 0.2% asylum seekers accepted.
North africa just lets their youth leave and many get caught in questionable actions. And they won't want the back. If politicans stopped freezing like a statue to evade any claim they do it wrong , the problem of organized groups of north africa and eastern europe is one whose solution also helps the people who have a real claim on seeking refuge.
Here we go again.These people don't want to stay in Turkey
Maybe glorious Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP aren't a positive factor and the people would stay if the conflicts end was at a future not too far.
Ok, lets dance. They don't decide who rules Turkey anymore than we do. And these people made a conscious decision to flee abroad instead of to government held territory. Who says they even want or can go back to an Assad controlled Syria.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey and no matter how much money we spend that money will be spend on detaining them there.
If everyone in the USA wants to live in your home town, would you also say it is their choice to come and stay or do you want to have some part in this decision?
The wants of foreign nationals are not the main decisive factor. My home , my rules. Your home , your rules.
If the USA was involved in a violent civil war that was driven by a ruthless dictator murdering the opposition then yes I would (que Trump in the future joke ). Also you have to tell me what magical town in Germany all refugees go to. The Netherlands also takes in refugees. My part in the decision comes from the fact if it is safe to go back for these people, if Assad is still in charge this will most assuredly not be the case for a good amount of these people. You basically say that you don't care about the future of Syrians, either alive or dead.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people risk their lives cause they see a better future for themselves in Europe.
What if their idea of their life here isn't coming true? Disenfranchised and a good recrutement pool for criminlas and extremists most likely...
A better future is a reason to immigrate, but it isn't seeking refuge from war. So either they are threathened by death ( some sort of war going on ) or they just look for a better place to be and this Planet is a big place. You don't have to pick Europe....
Lots of empty areas in the USA and Russia. Maybe the UK wants the people from its former colonies , or france or spain, portugal, the netherlands etc.?
Disenfranchisement from living in a refugee camp is an even better recruitment pool, look at the Palestinians! Us not accepting them isn't going to make their opinion of them any more favourable.
A better future is also a good reason to leave an active war zone. These people don't all go to Europe. Look at the statistics, only 1 in every 10 displaced Syrians come to Europe, stop spreading this false information. And what if no other country wants to take them either? Should we let them die because it is politically convenient to keep them out of 'our house'?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
No one willingly risks their life for no reason. The argument of helping people over there always sounds nice, but usually result in the establishment of permanent refugee camps with people having to live out their lives there cause no state wants them.
Our idea, i mena the idea many in my country are running with isn't permanent camps but camps until the conflict ends. And we live in the middle of europe, we had enough conflicts here to know they don't have to be permanent.
We also repopulated cities after conflicts but on terms made by those who offer a place, not on terms imagined by those who want to come.
We don't know if it will ever be safe for these people to return no matter how badly we like to pretend Assad will be magnanimous and forgive everyone. Please you are German, you are the definition of permanent. The war that Hitler started ended with the forced displacement of millions of people in 1945, not in the least ethnic Germans to what territory Germany currently occupies. You didn't have any control over Poland or Czechoslovakia forcibly exiling Germans that Germany had to accept. Don't come at me with your 'we live here we know, our terms', you obviously don't realize less then 70 years ago you didn't even decide your own fate.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again there is the example of the Palestinians and several African nations.
Make no mistake, sending these people back to Assad is advocating death.
Why do we have to spent good tax money if we just have to ask you who is threathened by death and thus granted asyl?
maybe the real cases aren't that many? The numbers i have seen a low %, single digit. Only a few countries are so bad you almost offer asyl to most of them.
That's why these asylum procedures take years, they don't just accept everyone who says their in danger, but they won't send them back into an active war zone. And if you like it or not you still spend good tax money to keep them out of Germany. We pay Turkey a large amount of money to prevent more of them coming. The main refugees groups are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, low %?? How safe are these?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do you know what his regime does to the opposition? We have documented countless war crimes and disappearances.
How many leaders are still in charge if we make all of them responsible? 50%?
Well we have Assad, Kim, Mugabe, Castro and a lot more that are edging out on the dictatorship and murderous regimes. Your response makes little sense to my question. Do you know what Assad has done to protesters and opponents?
Disciple of Fate wrote:
You can call it silly and use all the cute orkmoticons you want but the fact is Assad will certainly kill a part of those that will be forced to go back.
Good. I'll heed your request and add some cute orkmoticons and I am calling it silly too.
Always a pleasure to serve a request.
Always a pleasure to see someone who can gain enjoyment out of human suffering, shine on you crazy diamond
Disciple of Fate wrote:
The law is very clear on political asylum, we can't knowingly send people back into danger. Sure a few might be bad people, but we shouldn't demonize the whole group because of these.
Identify the criminals and extremists and sort them out is demonizing?
What type of Danger is enough to send no one there? Bad perspectives? a hard life without luxuries? lots of work?
Germany already has ~170.000 who aren't sent anywhere...so who is deporting people to their deaths here?
Again you don't understand. Identifying the bad people isn't the problem. Saying to Syrians you can't come in because one or two of you might be bad is the problem. You do realize Syria is an active war zone and we are already deporting Syrians back to Turkey right? And danger as in that the regime will arrest and punish people for actions they should be punished for. For someone saying they know what political asylum is you don't seem to know the definition of danger in that context.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Following my logic you should screen refugees and only deny those that pose a danger to our society. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of murderers that might be amongst refugees. I advocate against blanket rejection of the refugees over these few murderers. I think you misunderstood my point.
In this case, about 530 persons shouldn't be in Germany. But they are. Because Laws kick in when the crime happened.
So , your suggestion how to remove possible evildoers before they get to act?
You can't remove those people if you don't know they are evil, are you trying to be dense? Imprison those who commit crimes and then either deport or observe them after they serve their sentence, you know like how we treat nationals who commit crimes? Again we don't send Syrians back now because its a WAR ZONE!
Disciple of Fate wrote:
However to restate, you can't keep those refugees out if they want to come.
Yes we can.
Based on the fact that so many are already here I'm going to say we can't. Just look at the USA and Mexican immigration, they don't really want it yet they still come, don't pretend this is simple.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were basically paying Turkey to detain them now while they threaten to open the floodgates again.
Turkey is lead by someone who is playing a dangerous game and the moment we have people with balls in charge is the time when threats from Turkey will cease.
Erdogans Turkey cannot solve the problems because they are part of it. We should give them nothing ( just send anyone back they try to "open the floodgate" for ) until they change their ways.
Lets move all the 60 mio refugees the UN lists to turkey. to make a point.
If you say no he will personally help those refugees cross to make a point. Giving them nothing just gives him incentive to either force them to stay in Syria like he is doing or just shipping them on. We don't have anywhere near the funds to secure the entire EU border. Your UN comment is just so far outside of reality you might as well advocate sending them to Mars.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
It is just not economically feasible to build a system designed to keep them out.
But its is. As explained by Mr Müller.
Again these people don't want to stay there regardless. Why do you think Germany and others pay Turkey so we can DEPORT THEM BACK THERE. If everything was so simple as mister Müller would want us to believe there wouldn't be a refugee rpoblem as we would have already tried this years ago.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey, they want a future in Europe for their children and no supported refugee camp will ever provide the future Europe can.
The future Europe provides is?
Maybe we have no future to offer?
Don't get me wrong, i'd happily accept if Europe could save everyone, provide jobs for eyery human beeing and housing and welfare and and.. but IMO thats far beyond our capabilities. We are at best one link in a chain.
We are relatively rich enough to provide their children with an education and a job in the future. We have that future to offer even if you don't want to acknowledge or enable it, going back to Mexico and the USA.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.
Given that he escaped the scene on foot?? I'm assuming he had help.
Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.
Given that he escaped the scene on foot?? I'm assuming he had help.
Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.
Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.
Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.
He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.
He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.
Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.
He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.
He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.
It depends on help. A unwittting help. That's not illegal.
If they helped plan, or supported the attack on the market in some way and knew plan.
That's criminal.
Breotan wrote: Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.
Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....
Breotan wrote: Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.
Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....
You're jumping straigth to the conclusion that he's had help without even considering the fact that he could've just taken a train or a bus to Italy and evaded police along the way. You ARE the "real villains" (other than the people who, you know, actually kill people), as you put it, because we can count on you blaming Muslims for absolutely everything. Meanwhile, you block people for daring to point out that doing things like disparaging every Bremainer based on the actions of individuals makes you a bigot.
You're not going to see this, but I'll say the same thing I said last time: if you don't want to be called a bigot, stop doing bigotted things.
And frankly europe is having it easy. Western countries(uk and us at the front) are causing refugee crisis but how many they take? Pittances. Poorer countries get like 20% population increase due to refugees. Finland thinks it's bad we got 30k refugee? Poorer contry with abut same population got over million...
And as for crimes...relative to number of people finns are causing abou 3-4 times more work to police than refugees. Even if you factor in cases where refugees were victims.
And it's not like terrorism is only what muslims do or what you call going to synago guns blazing? Happened day before berlin attack. Less in news though. Guess sells less.
Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.
He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.
He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.
The IRA got help from people who were neither catholic or irish. So a separate terrorist organisation with a grievance with western countries or sympathisers who are not a muslim could knowingly give aid to him. Jumping straight to the assumption that only a muslim would help him is incredibly dumb.
Breotan wrote: Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.
Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....
Behind all the sarcasm there is just a sad, sad inability to understand the modern geopolitical history of the middle east, most of which consists of us killing them for lulz and profit, with the odd coup, puppet dictator and terrorist funding and training thrown in for good measure. But no, they have no cause to be angry, they were just born evil, like Orcs, so we are justified in slaughtering them like Orcs.
Ok, lets dance. They don't decide who rules Turkey anymore than we do. And these people made a conscious decision to flee abroad instead of to government held territory. Who says they even want or can go back to an Assad controlled Syria.
You basically say that you don't care about the future of Syrians, either alive or dead.
You expect me to care for 8.000.000.000 Humans fate on earth?
Why don't you offer any other reply than silly claims anyone who disagrees doesn't care. Its a widespread practice. "Paint them as bad as possible", then their views don't count.
Doesn't work.
The burden to ensure world peace, safe the climate, provide jobs,education and welfare to every human on this planet is NOT upon Europe or Germany alone.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Look at the statistics, only 1 in every 10 displaced Syrians come to Europe, stop spreading this false information.
Where did I say x% of Syrians come to Europe?
Statistics exist to be used. Created to supply a view. There was 0 false info from me.
And what if no other country wants to take them either? Should we let them die because it is politically convenient to keep them out of 'our house'?
Nice attempt to blame someone for something that may or may not happen. Where is your proof that 100% of Syrians are going to die ( i mean we know humans are mortal so if you wait for 70+ years ...) ?
Don't you think its odd how many young males are "refugees" , the group which usually was doing the fighting in wars for millenia of human history, and so few families?
But maybe the families, the old and sick, are safe in Syria and just the possible recruts have to flee...
Please you are German, you are the definition of permanent. The war that Hitler started ended with the forced displacement of millions of people in 1945, not in the least ethnic Germans to what territory Germany currently occupies. You didn't have any control over Poland or Czechoslovakia forcibly exiling Germans that Germany had to accept. Don't come at me with your 'we live here we know, our terms', you obviously don't realize less then 70 years ago you didn't even decide your own fate.
Really?
Maybe we don't even decide our fate right now?...who knows...
But, my point was a bit farther down in history. Seems you have to dig a bit deeper than 100 years. Are 1000 enough to find examples where the recrutement and settlement of people worked in europe?
Disciple of Fate wrote: The main refugees groups are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, low %?? How safe are these?
Since no one is sent into active war zones, many people only at low % means the threat isn't as covering the surface of earth like some want to tell everyone.
Is Assad Immortal? No? so it won't be this way forever. But you seem to have no problem paying someone like Erdogan ( where no one knows what he may do to protesters and opponents )....
Exactly, we know what happens if we send these people back. So why are you questioning letting these Syrians in to be tried against this procedure?
We know? How many Syrians are real Syrians?
If you know who is who, why don't you support our poor serfs in their quest to identify and clear the status of people?
We can take the identified ones in then .
Again you don't understand. Identifying the bad people isn't the problem. Saying to Syrians you can't come in because one or two of you might be bad is the problem. You do realize Syria is an active war zone and we are already deporting Syrians back to Turkey right? And danger as in that the regime will arrest and punish people for actions they should be punished for. For someone saying they know what political asylum is you don't seem to know the definition of danger in that context.
So identifiyng the bad isn't the problem when we have hundred thousands of people who are without papers, maybe not identified correctly and the fact people may try the dishonest route and count as syrians if this grants them a chance to stay?
People who got a message of please stay where you are aren't the ones with a good chance to get political asylum but people from the south of europe and the north of africa.
You can't remove those people if you don't know they are evil, are you trying to be dense?
And if I know they "are evil" ? If you know they plan an attack? Is this enough ?
Oh wait, we are going to observe them, for years, attempt to deport them, for years, and someday they are making their plans happen and politicans blame the police...
I think we had a law preventing one from fighting for foreign powers. Maybe we should reactive it and any type of loyality to known extremists nets you a safe and warm place to stay for a while...
Imprison those who commit crimes and then either deport or observe them after they serve their sentence, you know like how we treat nationals who commit crimes?
So we wait for someone to drive a truck over some pedestrians and then we can deal with them. Awesome! Instead of using the gathered info and protecting the people we sit and wait.
Based on the fact that so many are already here I'm going to say we can't. Just look at the USA and Mexican immigration, they don't really want it yet they still come, don't pretend this is simple.
We don't have anywhere near the funds to secure the entire EU border.
Depends.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Your UN comment is just so far outside of reality you might as well advocate sending them to Mars.
Mars is surely a safe place without war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Why do you think Germany and others pay Turkey so we can DEPORT THEM BACK THERE. If everything was so simple as mister Müller would want us to believe there wouldn't be a refugee rpoblem as we would have already tried this years ago.
Our shortsighted leaders never act soon enough. The problem was on the horizon and the Europeans did as much as they did to prevent every other crisis. Nothing.
Afterwards the people can pay to solve the problem because money makes problems go away. Or not.
We are relatively rich enough to provide their children with an education and a job in the future. We have that future to offer even if you don't want to acknowledge or enable it, going back to Mexico and the USA.
So we pay for educating a lot of people so we can have them around without jobs.
I don't have to acknowledge false hopes. To offer a perspective you cannot deliver is , at least, unfair.
Several Countrys in europe already got lots of unemployed youth. You go tell them we are going to add some so we can have more.They will be happy. And celebrate your great idea.
Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
The bold part: That's how it usually works. Asylum only means you get to stay temporarily in Germany (until the danger is over). Asylum is not the same as immigration. Of course, if you are here for a long enough time you can get permanent resident status like anybody else and the rules for that are the same as for anybody who wants to get that status (stuff like being able to sustain a live here and so on). I mentioned in another reply how this can be harsh on kids who get here as infants, grow up, and live here and then get sent back to a place that is foreign to them, where they don't even understand the language, or culture (as they were raised here). Asylum doesn't mean that everybody gets permanent residency here.
jhe90 wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.
Europe is just one large soft target. Open borders and all.
He was wanted and crossed 3 borders and 1200km, 5-5 stations...
That was like one long train ride (about 1000 km). Google maps tells me that's about San Francisco, CA to Portland, OR. And the borders are open, it's like taking a long train ride through California (Austria fits like three, four times inside of California). They got him when they found him. Should there be border checkpoints at each state border in Germany for each train, car, and flight? Borders, more or less, don't exist for travel inside Europe. That's the whole point of the EU, to enable you to travel throughout Europe without all the hassle (and you can't restrict that for crime fighting purposes without also making it useless for every non-criminal). I don't think anyone is complaining about there being not enough artificially checkpoints every 200 or 300 miles in California or Texas because these states are too big.
Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.
Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.
The bold part: That's how it usually works. Asylum only means you get to stay temporarily in Germany (until the danger is over). Asylum is not the same as immigration. Of course, if you are here for a long enough time you can get permanent resident status like anybody else and the rules for that are the same as for anybody who wants to get that status (stuff like being able to sustain a live here and so on). I mentioned in another reply how this can be harsh on kids who get here as infants, grow up, and live here and then get sent back to a place that is foreign to them, where they don't even understand the language, or culture (as they were raised here). Asylum doesn't mean that everybody gets permanent residency here.
jhe90 wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.
Europe is just one large soft target. Open borders and all.
He was wanted and crossed 3 borders and 1200km, 5-5 stations...
That was like one long train ride (about 1000 km). Google maps tells me that's about San Francisco, CA to Portland, OR. And the borders are open, it's like taking a long train ride through California (Austria fits like three, four times inside of California). They got him when they found him. Should there be border checkpoints at each state border in Germany for each train, car, and flight? Borders, more or less, don't exist for travel inside Europe. That's the whole point of the EU, to enable you to travel throughout Europe without all the hassle (and you can't restrict that for crime fighting purposes without also making it useless for every non-criminal). I don't think anyone is complaining about there being not enough artificially checkpoints every 200 or 300 miles in California or Texas because these states are too big.
When you have events like this. There should be checks to prevent the criminal sawnning off like they did.
Its not even complicated, photo id only, show itnand wave on your way. Disruption yes. But the border alerts not permannent.
Temp checks at border and local countries to prevent escape, and also ensures if they are escaped suspects they cannot escape as easily.
I don't buy that they are nessicary, I can drive from NY, NY to Scramento, CA without showing my ID onve. That's like 6000 miles. If the US can deal with it, so can the EU. As long as the police communicate, thete shouldn't be an issue, which is sort of the point of the EU, isn't it? And if the boarders aren't manned it shouldn't be difficult to cross the boarders avoiding a checkpoint.
Ok, lets dance. They don't decide who rules Turkey anymore than we do. And these people made a conscious decision to flee abroad instead of to government held territory. Who says they even want or can go back to an Assad controlled Syria.
So 100% of refugees are from Syria now?
I never started with claiming they were a 100% Syrians. The tangent you started replying to was specifically about Syrians returning, thats why I keep bringing up Assad. Furthermore, many of the refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan used to travel through Turkey on their way to Europe
You basically say that you don't care about the future of Syrians, either alive or dead.
You expect me to care for 8.000.000.000 Humans fate on earth?
Why don't you offer any other reply than silly claims anyone who disagrees doesn't care. Its a widespread practice. "Paint them as bad as possible", then their views don't count. Doesn't work.
The burden to ensure world peace, safe the climate, provide jobs,education and welfare to every human on this planet is NOT upon Europe or Germany alone.
No, I expect you to have a little sympathy for why these people want to come to Europe. Saying they can go somewhere else without providing any long term solution is easy. I already said, grant those Syrians who are not a threat political asylum. How about you advocating for them to live in refugees camps for an unknown number of year, is that less silly?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Look at the statistics, only 1 in every 10 displaced Syrians come to Europe, stop spreading this false information.
Where did I say x% of Syrians come to Europe? Statistics exist to be used. Created to supply a view. There was 0 false info from me.
You said "this Planet is a big place. You don't have to pick Europe.... ", I'm just saying the vast majority doesn't even pick Europe. It is a false idea being propagated by right wing parties. Did you mean that you don't want any to pick Europe?
And what if no other country wants to take them either? Should we let them die because it is politically convenient to keep them out of 'our house'?
Nice attempt to blame someone for something that may or may not happen. Where is your proof that 100% of Syrians are going to die ( i mean we know humans are mortal so if you wait for 70+ years ...) ?
Don't you think its odd how many young males are "refugees" , the group which usually was doing the fighting in wars for millenia of human history, and so few families? But maybe the families, the old and sick, are safe in Syria and just the possible recruts have to flee...
Exactly, young men are expected to do the fighting and are the first to get called up to die, these young men have chosen not to die for a pointless civil war. They are also the most able to make the dangerous crossing and then take advantage of family reunion policies in Europe to safely bring in there family. If you want to get a place in Europe you're not going to send your 80 year old infirm grandma to reserve you a spot. Who do you think stays behind in Turkey?
Please you are German, you are the definition of permanent. The war that Hitler started ended with the forced displacement of millions of people in 1945, not in the least ethnic Germans to what territory Germany currently occupies. You didn't have any control over Poland or Czechoslovakia forcibly exiling Germans that Germany had to accept. Don't come at me with your 'we live here we know, our terms', you obviously don't realize less then 70 years ago you didn't even decide your own fate.
Really? Maybe we don't even decide our fate right now?...who knows... But, my point was a bit farther down in history. Seems you have to dig a bit deeper than 100 years. Are 1000 enough to find examples where the recrutement and settlement of people worked in europe?
Further down in history? What are you talking about, refugee and immigration policy is something of the last 100 to 200 years at most. We have plenty of examples where people had to flee from war and settle in a different country. The Netherlands is one such country that had to deal with a large influx of refugees during the war for our independence. If anything the less centralized states of the past had little control over actual refugees and it all worked out pretty well. It also happened that the world ended up neatly divided into large empires that could easily resettle their own refugees in different places. Modern history might be one of the only times that we fully control who is allowed to stay and who is not due to the extensive registering of citizens. Explain your point more clearly or else it contains little of value. war and refugees have always been a part of Europe. I pointed out that even Germany did not have any say in the matter of refugees as little as 70 years ago, while you were claiming some sort of historical basis for knowledge on refugee problems and the terms you could set on them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The main refugees groups are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, low %?? How safe are these?
Since no one is sent into active war zones, many people only at low % means the threat isn't as covering the surface of earth like some want to tell everyone.
I don't quite understand what it is you're trying to say here. Are you denying that Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis make up the majority of refugees and they aren't coming from war zones? I have also shown statistics that the vast majority stays in the immediate region and only relatively few tend to make for Europe.
Is Assad Immortal? No? so it won't be this way forever. But you seem to have no problem paying someone like Erdogan ( where no one knows what he may do to protesters and opponents )....
Is Assad immortal? Yes, seeing as Assad is the family name and before the current one we had his father in c harge commiting crimes against humanity. If he wins this war it is quite likely someone else from the Assad clan will take over the reins of power. Please explain to me with your gift of clairvoyance when the Assad regime will fall so we can send these Syrians back that would be great, also what are the winning lottery numbers while you're at it? The Kims have been in power since the 50's, what's to say the Assad clan won't be in power for 5 or more decades if they win? What are you going to do with those refugees in the meantime? I do have very big problems paying Erdogan, but unfortunately it is the realpolitik being trafficked to assure less refugees in Europe. As much as I dislike the Führer of Turkey he isn't exactly engaged in a bloody civil war to maintain power, killing thousands every day, which is why its more acceptable politically to pay him. This whole time you have been missing my points, I advise you take more time to read them as I have most certainly expressed no approval of those plans.
Exactly, we know what happens if we send these people back. So why are you questioning letting these Syrians in to be tried against this procedure?
We know? How many Syrians are real Syrians? If you know who is who, why don't you support our poor serfs in their quest to identify and clear the status of people? We can take the identified ones in then .
Well if you had been paying attention to my posts in this thread I have posted research with numbers on where they are from. And cut the BS as if we don't tend to investigate and identify these people before deciding if they can stay or should go back. The least we can do is take care of them here until such time as it is established. Its not like living in a detention center for years is so great for them.
Again you don't understand. Identifying the bad people isn't the problem. Saying to Syrians you can't come in because one or two of you might be bad is the problem. You do realize Syria is an active war zone and we are already deporting Syrians back to Turkey right? And danger as in that the regime will arrest and punish people for actions they should be punished for. For someone saying they know what political asylum is you don't seem to know the definition of danger in that context.
So identifiyng the bad isn't the problem when we have hundred thousands of people who are without papers, maybe not identified correctly and the fact people may try the dishonest route and count as syrians if this grants them a chance to stay? People who got a message of please stay where you are aren't the ones with a good chance to get political asylum but people from the south of europe and the north of africa.
Lets try this again. I... have... no.. problem... with.. the.. authorities... trying... to... identify... the.. bad.. people. I never said that trying to identify them was easy. You do realize these people don't just get a pass when they say they are Syrian. We have a whole infrastructure dedicated to investigate the claims of these people. Actually if you identify the problem it is more likely their asylum application gets treated more quickly once there in Europe than outside as it adds extra pressure politically. Then when those people are granted to stay, which has absolutely nothing to do with if they did or didn't cross into Europe, they can ask for their families to be brought over.
You can't remove those people if you don't know they are evil, are you trying to be dense?
And if I know they "are evil" ? If you know they plan an attack? Is this enough ? Oh wait, we are going to observe them, for years, attempt to deport them, for years, and someday they are making their plans happen and politicans blame the police... I think we had a law preventing one from fighting for foreign powers. Maybe we should reactive it and any type of loyality to known extremists nets you a safe and warm place to stay for a while...
If you know they are planning attacks you should arrest them. In the case of the Berlin attack we have seen how many things they knew about the guy yet they didn't intervene. Who knows why they didn't but we have laws against the planning of a terrorist attack. Deporting them is a whole different problem as no country wants to accept a known terrorist, unless we start advocating strapping on a parachute and dumping them out of a plane above some random country. Again it is already illegal to participate in a terrorist organisation or fighting abroad for one, we are already able to punish these people with sufficient evidence, but evidence is the problem.
Imprison those who commit crimes and then either deport or observe them after they serve their sentence, you know like how we treat nationals who commit crimes?
So we wait for someone to drive a truck over some pedestrians and then we can deal with them. Awesome! Instead of using the gathered info and protecting the people we sit and wait.
No we don't. Most countries have arrested and put people on trial for plotting terrorist attacks, there is no reason we should't be able to do that with refugees planning the same. There is absolutely no reason they should have let the Berlin or Paris attackers walk around freely with the evidence later shown that we possessed. Trying to imply I'm saying that is disingenuous in the worst possible way, but nice try.
But we can send them back someday. And we get closer to that day if we stop the silly powergames of certain nations.
Exactly, someday. But that day might be tomorrow by some miracle or 50 years when the Assad regime finally falls. What are we going to do with these Syrians in the meantime? And silly powergames are exactly the reason Assad will stay in power and these people can't go back, until Russia and Iran intervened he did not have the strength left to successfully win the war. Ending the war doesn't mean these people can just return.
Based on the fact that so many are already here I'm going to say we can't. Just look at the USA and Mexican immigration, they don't really want it yet they still come, don't pretend this is simple.
I said we can. I didn't say its easy.
And I say we most certainly can't. Protecting the border is economically unfeasible and they will just disappear into illegality. Explain to me exactly how we can with something more than just we can.
If you say no he will personally help those refugees cross to make a point.
Good news for us! we can make him fail there.
How are we going to make him fail. He will just give every refugee a rubber boat and send them on to Greece, are we going to leave them floating around to die in the Aegean? Cause I'm certainly willing to bet Erdogan might be prepared to, as he is basically trying to punish Europe to get his rocks off. Then what?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Giving them nothing just gives him incentive to either force them to stay in Syria like he is doing or just shipping them on.
Can he afford to let everyone know who benefits from shipping them on ?
Oh he sure can. He doesn't have any problem with political support in his own country. Lets not forget he RESTARTED THE WAR WITH THE KURDS FOR POLITICAL GAIN. He is willing to let hundreds of his citizens die for some extra parliament seats. You think he gives two flying feths about what people think of him shipping off refugees? For someone borderline calling me an Erdogan supporter you sure don't know a lot about the man.
We don't have anywhere near the funds to secure the entire EU border.
Depends.
It doesn't depend. Having enough people to cover the entire Mediterranean in ships and coasts with personnel to send back refugees would cost Trillions. Where do we get this money from? Do you have another magical village filled with gold next to the one where all the refugees went to?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Why do you think Germany and others pay Turkey so we can DEPORT THEM BACK THERE. If everything was so simple as mister Müller would want us to believe there wouldn't be a refugee rpoblem as we would have already tried this years ago.
Our shortsighted leaders never act soon enough. The problem was on the horizon and the Europeans did as much as they did to prevent every other crisis. Nothing. Afterwards the people can pay to solve the problem because money makes problems go away. Or not.
How was the problem of the Syrian civil war on the horizon? The Arab spring was one of the big political events we completely missed coming. Please tell me more how we could have prevented all this? Money never makes problems go way, if that was the case we would have won Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and a multitude of other conflicts in no time. Money is the one thing that isn't really that effective unless you go at it the proper way such as temporarily or indefinitely allowing people to stay somewhere safe were they don't start resenting us and create problems ten years down the line.
We are relatively rich enough to provide their children with an education and a job in the future. We have that future to offer even if you don't want to acknowledge or enable it, going back to Mexico and the USA.
So we pay for educating a lot of people so we can have them around without jobs. I don't have to acknowledge false hopes. To offer a perspective you cannot deliver is , at least, unfair. Several Countrys in europe already got lots of unemployed youth. You go tell them we are going to add some so we can have more.They will be happy. And celebrate your great idea.
Again look at the demographic problems Germany is going to encounter in the future and the types of jobs these people do, not many natives want those. Her is some info: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21688938-europes-new-arrivals-will-probably-dent-public-finances-not-wages-good-or Just read it and come back to me about false hopes. The economy is recovering and refugees tend to go to countries with the lowest unemployment rates. You don't see them crowding in Italy and Spain with the highest youth unemployment. There are jobs for those coming in now and there educated children will fill the labour gap that native Germans will leave due to the declining birth rate. Please don't try to make false statements. As much as people in the Netherlands like to pretend they will steal our jobs, the second the babyboomers retire there will be far too few people to work and pay taxes to take care of those retirees. All these refugees are expected to eventually boost our economies, for someone blaming short term thinking of politicians your economic viewpoint certainly suffers from the same problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I don't buy that they are nessicary, I can drive from NY, NY to Scramento, CA without showing my ID onve. That's like 6000 miles. If the US can deal with it, so can the EU. As long as the police communicate, thete shouldn't be an issue, which is sort of the point of the EU, isn't it? And if the boarders aren't manned it shouldn't be difficult to cross the boarders avoiding a checkpoint.
Its a side effect of Schengen, automated ticket machines and the fact that you can buy international train tickets without ID as long as you don't want to reserve a spot in advance but go up to the desk. I have crossed borders many times with public transport and I have never had to show ID if I just showed up to the train station. The day this man had to escape probably gave him enough time, given that he had some money, to easily leave Germany without any help before they had even considered him as a suspect.
Millions of people cross borders all over the world every day, sometimes with, and sometimes without ID checks. There's no evidence this leads to increased terrorism. If anything, western Europe in particular is one of the safest places on Earth from crime, poverty, terrorism and war. That is why people want to come and live here.
The perpetrator of this attack was a Tunisian. He has been shot by police in Milan after pulling a gun on them when they asked him for ID.
He had quite the time in Tunisia too. Apparently the reason why he was seeking asylum in Europe in the first place was because he was fleeing criminal convictions. I believe it was arson or something like that. I'll get the sources I was reading up as soon as I find them. Weirdly, even though he was on their radar, Tunisia felt justified in claiming that they didn't know if he was one of theirs or not and thus refused to take him back.
It's also strange that his family still feel like Tunisia is safe enough to live in isn't it? It's almost as if he was never really in enough danger to warrant being labelled an asylum seeker and was instead a lowlife scumbag taking his chances to abuse our system. Who'd have thought it?
He had quite the time in Tunisia too. Apparently the reason why he was seeking asylum in Europe in the first place was because he was fleeing criminal convictions. I believe it was arson or something like that. I'll get the sources I was reading up as soon as I find them. Weirdly, even though he was on their radar, Tunisia felt justified in claiming that they didn't know if he was one of theirs or not and thus refused to take him back.
It's also strange that his family still feel like Tunisia is safe enough to live in isn't it? It's almost as if he was never really in enough danger to warrant being labelled an asylum seeker and was instead a lowlife scumbag taking his chances to abuse our system. Who'd have thought it?
From what I read he committed arson in Italy after he arrived in 2011, not in Tunisia, spending four years in Italian jail. When he was released in 2015 he travelled to Germany. He seems to have radicalized during his time in prison (corresponding with his allegiance video last spring or summer in Germany) as he recently started sending money to his 18 year old brother or nephew to cross as well to help him with whatever attack he was preparing. And he wanted to go from Italy to Turkey to fight in Syria, which seems the most inconvenient route if he already had that plan in Tunisia.
Edit: I just checked, four years for arson in Palermo.
The spectator is a news magizine that lets its journalists voice their own opinions, not a newspaper looking for unbiased reporting. This case I find myself agreeing with Nicholas. Why was that scumbag still in Europe?
There is no such thing as unbiased reporting in the paid media.
Newspapers and TV channels have editors and owners. Owners have opinions at a high level and editors echo them.
Comments about biased media usually come from very naive or dishonest set who flatly refuse to acknowledge that the people behind the media of their own political direction is as swayable as any other.
Tory press is full of lies, signed Guardian reader (and vice versa).
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one comes to the conclusion that Gatestone Institute is just as valid a source as official statistics. Meanwhile, back in reality, the fact that everything has biases does not mean those biases are equal.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one comes to the conclusion that Gatestone Institute is just as valid a source as official statistics. Meanwhile, back in reality, the fact that everything has biases does not mean those biases are equal.
So some peoples bias is to have a head-in-sand denial about the rape culture overtaking Sweden.
You're jumping straigth to the conclusion that he's had help without even considering the fact that he could've just taken a train or a bus to Italy and evaded police along the way. You ARE the "real villains" (other than the people who, you know, actually kill people), as you put it, because we can count on you blaming Muslims for absolutely everything. Meanwhile, you block people for daring to point out that doing things like disparaging every Bremainer based on the actions of individuals makes you a bigot.
You're not going to see this, but I'll say the same thing I said last time: if you don't want to be called a bigot, stop doing bigotted things.
No its not bigoted raise an issue with an evident problem, and doubly necessary to raise the issue when some people in authority are happy to let abuses continue because confronting them is uncomfortable for ethnic relations.
Sweden, learn from the Blair regime, learn from Rotherham.
And now the problem is in your homeland, learn from Malmo festival too.
I am not going to be silenced by dishonest left wing progressive rhetoric, and neither should anyone else. This problem is very real.
That was an excellently worded post worth exalting, thank you.
EDIT:
I see that according to Almighty Walrus, I'm on the same level as the killers because I call them and their creed out. Yeah, crap like that is why I have him on ignore. Contrary to what some might believe, I can tolerate different opinions. What I don't tolerate is gross insults and hyperbolic accusations like that.
Future War Cultist wrote: The spectator is a news magizine that lets its journalists voice their own opinions, not a newspaper looking for unbiased reporting. This case I find myself agreeing with Nicholas. Why was that scumbag still in Europe?
He already committed arson... Why did we even keep this guy. By some reports he fled Tunisia as was wanted for car theft..... Sounds good guy.
Surely a serious crime is ernough for deportation.
Its not minor assault, arson can and has killed.
If we deported in 2015... 12 people be home with families for Christmas.
Future War Cultist wrote: The spectator is a news magizine that lets its journalists voice their own opinions, not a newspaper looking for unbiased reporting. This case I find myself agreeing with Nicholas. Why was that scumbag still in Europe?
He already committed arson... Why did we even keep this guy. By some reports he fled Tunisia as was wanted for car theft..... Sounds good guy.
Surely a serious crime is ernough for deportation.
Its not minor assault, arson can and has killed.
If we deported in 2015... 12 people be home with families for Christmas.
Future War Cultist wrote: The spectator is a news magizine that lets its journalists voice their own opinions, not a newspaper looking for unbiased reporting. This case I find myself agreeing with Nicholas. Why was that scumbag still in Europe?
He already committed arson... Why did we even keep this guy. By some reports he fled Tunisia as was wanted for car theft..... Sounds good guy.
Surely a serious crime is ernough for deportation.
Its not minor assault, arson can and has killed.
If we deported in 2015... 12 people be home with families for Christmas.
Pre-Crime Division screw-up as usual.
And Arson with 4 years in jail not deportable offense?
Its seriousness is higher ernough to qustion if you even want that person in Europe. Samneif caught, rape, murder, serious assults or such.
Crime is bad ernough you must raise question, and investigate it.
This only seems significant due to cognitive bias, because this particular guy has now done something terrorist.
There are various recent terrorists in Europe who didn't commit a previous crime, and/or else are citizens and can't deported. In fact most of them are in this category.
There are also no doubt lots of asylum seekers and refugees who have committed some type of crime, been punished, and have not gone on to commit a terrorism.
That was an excellently worded post worth exalting, thank you.
EDIT:
I see that according to Almighty Walrus, I'm on the same level as the killers because I call them and their creed out. Yeah, crap like that is why I have him on ignore. Contrary to what some might believe, I can tolerate different opinions. What I don't tolerate is gross insults and hyperbolic accusations like that.
If you'd read what I wrote you'd notice the tiny little exception that I made. You know, the one where I acknowledge that the murderer obviously is worse.
And you still have me on ignore because you can't deal with being called a bigot for posting bigoted posts. It's on public display for everyone to see in the UK politics thread. Do you want me to quote it for you?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how one comes to the conclusion that Gatestone Institute is just as valid a source as official statistics. Meanwhile, back in reality, the fact that everything has biases does not mean those biases are equal.
So some peoples bias is to have a head-in-sand denial about the rape culture overtaking Sweden.
You're jumping straigth to the conclusion that he's had help without even considering the fact that he could've just taken a train or a bus to Italy and evaded police along the way. You ARE the "real villains" (other than the people who, you know, actually kill people), as you put it, because we can count on you blaming Muslims for absolutely everything. Meanwhile, you block people for daring to point out that doing things like disparaging every Bremainer based on the actions of individuals makes you a bigot.
You're not going to see this, but I'll say the same thing I said last time: if you don't want to be called a bigot, stop doing bigotted things.
No its not bigoted raise an issue with an evident problem, and doubly necessary to raise the issue when some people in authority are happy to let abuses continue because confronting them is uncomfortable for ethnic relations.
Sweden, learn from the Blair regime, learn from Rotherham.
And now the problem is in your homeland, learn from Malmo festival too.
I am not going to be silenced by dishonest left wing progressive rhetoric, and neither should anyone else. This problem is very real.
We've been over this in three threads already. You've been wrong every time.
The Guardian article fails to mention the massive widening of what constitutes rape in 2004/05. It mentions the wide definition of rape, but not that it was made that wide during the period they're looking at. Funnily enough that led to an increased number of reported rapes.
The Gatestone Institute articles, being by the Gatestone Institute, are riddled with methodological feth-ups. From using themselves as sources (which is OK, but silly when they could just link whatever source they were after) to using sites like Fria Tider, Avpixlat and Pettersonsblogg as sources at all (and no, I'm not going to debate whether Avpixlat is a legitimate source. I have better things to do.). Further, the Gatestone article blatantly tries to pass off correlation as causation in the case of Trästockfestivalen. They have nothing that actually process that the immigrants were causative of the abuses, so they'll merely imply it. The bunch of quotes at the start of the article aren't sourced properly, so it's almost impossible to check them. Similarly, the claims about the boys being identified as being from Afghanistan, Somalia, and Eritrea is not sourced at all.
Ingrid Carlqvist, the author of the article, is no longer affiliated with Gatestone because not even they could stomach her after she wanted the Sweden Democrats to seek support from the Neo-nazi group Nordiskt Motstånd. You're literally trying to use a person who sees no problem in cooperating with actual, honest-to-God nazis as an impartial source on immigration.
The debate about the "don't grope" bracelets has already been done in the thread dedicated to it, and I really don't feel like going over that again.
In short, what the Gatestone Institute actually does correctly it observe that there's been sexual assaults on several music festivals, and that the police lied about one of them. That ought to be bad enough without trying to attack immigrants based on little to no evidence beyond testimonies.
Further, why is it that this is suddenly a problem? There's been sexual assault on music festivals for years, women have been delivering testimonies of sexual harassment and assault more or less for ever. Why is this only now a problem? Why are we taking these testimonies as fact now when we haven't ever taken accusations of sexual harassment very seriously, despite professing to do so?
The leading cause for homegrown radicalization is the inability and difficulty that second or third generation immigrants have in functioning in society, there are still issues of racism towards employment and less viable chances overall in life. These people radicalize cause they see it as there only way out and are in one way or another desperate, not because they are not integrated. Jihadism is just another side effect of a large political stream of thought such as socialism or nationalism. We have to combat it, but the way isn't to treat all Muslims as fifth columnists.
ing break.
Its just that we don't know anything about the iceberg and we can fight all day about how much is under the water, all we can really say is how much is visible, which is four people. And again, we have no idea how many they found as these were the successful ones.
). Also you have to tell me what magical town in Germany all refugees go to. The Netherlands also takes in refugees. My part in the decision comes from the fact if it is safe to go back for these people, if Assad is still in charge this will most assuredly not be the case for a good amount of these people. You basically say that you don't care about the future of Syrians, either alive or dead.
