Stockholm incident: Car rams people on pedestrian street

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39531108

A vehicle has driven into people on a street in central Stockholm, said Swedish police.

A number of people are reported to be injured, they said.

The incident took place on Drottninggatan (Queen Street), one of the city's major pedestrian streets, just before 15:00 local time (14:00 GMT).

Witnesses told local media they have seen people on the ground.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

If you want to receive Breaking News alerts via email, or on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App then details on how to do so are available on this help page. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on Twitter to get the latest alerts.

3 Dead

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking

Sweden?

We don't know that it's an attack yet. It's obviously the most likely scenario, but it's too soon to know what's happened.

Reports of Gunfire right now.

https://mitti.se/nyheter/just-lastbil-folkmassa/

Gunfire not yet confirmed, only reported

Seems the truck rammed a department store.

Swedish police said a number of people were injured, and they are treating it as terrorism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39531108

Security Service Säpo has confirmed at least two people killed. Sad, but hopefully it won't get much worse.

Säpo confirmed 3 dead at 15:50.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Removed as the rest was wiped.

Not even a month since the last one.

Fething hell. I hope all our Swedish Dakkanaughts are safe.

Gah. Can these Islamic nut jobs feth off already and die without harming anyone.

Sad to hear again another damned attack.

If its a certain acronym. I think those cruise missiles hit the wrong target.

Apparently the perpetrator stole the lorry he used on-site. The driver was unloading beer when the perpetrator simply jumped into the lorry and drove off. It's thus unlikely to have been planned ahead of time.

Swedish police have apprehended a suspect, who says he did it, according to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's thus unlikely to have been planned ahead of time.

I'm not so sure. He might not have staked out a specific target truck to steal, but this guy was clearly looking for any opportunity he could find to grab a heavy vehicle and kill people with it.

Is it common to leave your keys in the vehicle while you unload cargo?

 Breotan wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's thus unlikely to have been planned ahead of time.

I'm not so sure. He might not have staked out a specific target truck to steal, but this guy was clearly looking for any opportunity he could find to grab a heavy vehicle and kill people with it.

Is it common to leave your keys in the vehicle while you unload cargo?

Well insurance wise which is kinda a normal line.
If anything happens to car and you left it alone, and thr key is in/engine running its not covered as you did not take propper care to ensure security.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Apparently the perpetrator stole the lorry he used on-site. The driver was unloading beer when the perpetrator simply jumped into the lorry and drove off. It's thus unlikely to have been planned ahead of time.

Swedish police have apprehended a suspect, who says he did it, according to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.

Well, trucks (without turning them into self-propelled bombs) are all the rage nowadays with Islamic Fundie terrorists. It's simpler from a logistics standpoint just use the truck as a weapon of terror, as opposed to sneaking in enough explosives to make an old fashioned car bomb.


In any case, to all of our community members from Sweden, keep your powder dry, eyes peeled, and say safe.

Swedish media is reporting that the apprehended suspect is an Uzbeki citizen working in construction.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Swedish media is reporting that the apprehended suspect is an Uzbeki citizen working in construction.

Makes me wonder if he was a lone wolf, or if there are others in on this.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan is a possibility but improbable as they tend to focus on central Asia, also have no real onus in attacking Sweden. I would assume at this point not so much terror, but a frustrated individual, using terrorist methods.

There's been a sort of chain of events where the Uzbek government have tried to kill an imam critic (as in, a critic of the Uzbeki government who is also an imam) living in exile in Sweden, failed miserably and gotten caught with their pants down. I have no idea if that has anything to do with this (and it probably doesn't, it sounds pretty far-fetched), but it's the only connection between Sweden and Uzbekistan I can think of straight away.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's been a sort of chain of events where the Uzbek government have tried to kill an imam critic (as in, a critic of the Uzbeki government who is also an imam) living in exile in Sweden, failed miserably and gotten caught with their pants down. I have no idea if that has anything to do with this (and it probably doesn't, it sounds pretty far-fetched), but it's the only connection between Sweden and Uzbekistan I can think of straight away.

I would still be more inclined to think that this guy is just a angry immigrant lashing out and not likely an terrorist (or even likely a terrorist sympathizer) who probably just snapped. People do snap from time to time and do vile, crazy stuff.

 thekingofkings wrote:


I would still be more inclined to think that this guy is just a angry immigrant lashing out and not likely an terrorist (or even likely a terrorist sympathizer) who probably just snapped.

The step between an angry immigrant and a terrorist is very very thin. Many of the killers of the recent terror attacks in europe became muslim and then radicalized only a few months before committing their murders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's been a sort of chain of events where the Uzbek government have tried to kill an imam critic (as in, a critic of the Uzbeki government who is also an imam) living in exile in Sweden, failed miserably and gotten caught with their pants down. I have no idea if that has anything to do with this (and it probably doesn't, it sounds pretty far-fetched), but it's the only connection between Sweden and Uzbekistan I can think of straight away.

there's no need of a connetion or a specific reason, islamic fundamentalists hate every western country

 Blackie wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I would still be more inclined to think that this guy is just a angry immigrant lashing out and not likely an terrorist (or even likely a terrorist sympathizer) who probably just snapped.

The step between an angry immigrant and a terrorist is very very thin. Many of the killers of the recent terror attacks in europe became muslim and then radicalized only a few months before committing their murders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's been a sort of chain of events where the Uzbek government have tried to kill an imam critic (as in, a critic of the Uzbeki government who is also an imam) living in exile in Sweden, failed miserably and gotten caught with their pants down. I have no idea if that has anything to do with this (and it probably doesn't, it sounds pretty far-fetched), but it's the only connection between Sweden and Uzbekistan I can think of straight away.

there's no need of a connetion or a specific reason, islamic fundamentalists hate every western country

But you are an anti immigrant bigot and islamophobe for pointing that out.

@ thekingofkings

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

 thekingofkings wrote:


But you are an anti immigrant bigot and islamophobe for pointing that out.

That's because you're assuming that all muslims and all immigrants are like that, do you actually know a muslim or an immigrant? If I criticize someone is because of his/her behaviour, not because of his/her religion or nationality. Ignoring the fact that many people among the minorities or with foreign origins hate our countries beacuse otherwise you'd be branded as a racist is actually typical of racist people.

letting criminals of foreign origins and radical muslims do what they're currently doing to destroy our way of living is the reason why attacks like this one are becoming "routine" and far rights groups are rising.

In italy this act of terror was in 8th-9th page in several main newspapers, they all talk about trump, which is insane.

I think King is being sarcastic.

Moving on, lets not make this attack seem like more than it is. While 4 killed is tragic, its not a massive death toll. Meanwhile a non Islamic terrorist killed 3 people with a sword in Sweden and an Eritrean Christian killed 2 in an Ikea. This focus on Muslims/immigrants turning into terrorists is completely out of scale to the actual problem. The percentage of migrants/Muslims that actually commit an attack is similar/smaller than the amount of regular murderers in each of those countries. Sure we have had tragically larger attacks with loss of life, but we can equally point to European terrorist and former terrorist organization killing a lot of people.

In the Netherlands for example we have had one radical Muslim kill a single person. Meanwhile we have had an ethnically Dutch person commit a mass shooting and another killing multiple people. Will there be an Islamic terrorist attack somewhere in the future? Most likely. Are we going to make a big deal out of it? I sure don't hope so. People dying is always tragic, but its not like they are committing these attacks on a grand scale. Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

A terror attack that kills 1000 or even 0 is the same act, it's only a matter of how skilled (or lucky) are the attackers.

Continue to ignore the problem of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

Continue to ignore the problems of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

Moving past the ridiculous hyperbole and lies. Here are a few by non Muslims/fanatics that killed multiple people
2017 Melbourne- Not a Muslim
2015 Graz- No religious or political motive
2010 Hebei- Not a Muslim
2009 Apeldoorn- No motive, Dutch guy just driving his car into a crowd watching a parade
2008 Akihabara- Not a Muslim

I could go on, but nothing more is needed to reveal your obvious lie. The whole style might have not even originated in the Muslim world because the first recorded use of this kind of truck attack was in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly.

Edit: also if you quote me Dailymail as a reliable source why bother?

As indeed the suicide vest bomber stylie was popularised by Tamil separatists in Ceylon, not Islamic extremists.

Gosh, it's almost as if Muslims are human beings, not some kind of weird alien that cannot be understood and simply must be crushed like locusts or cockroaches or something.

Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As indeed the suicide vest bomber stylie was popularised by Tamil separatists in Ceylon, not Islamic extremists.

Gosh, it's almost as if Muslims are human beings, not some kind of weird alien that cannot be understood and simply must be crushed like locusts or cockroaches or something.

Political violence in the form of terrorism and the concept of sacrificing oneself for a greater goal have a long history and there are many trends and organizations visible throughout history. Where people get this idea from that its just the Muslims, or that for some reason Muslims are going to keep up Islamic terrorism for centuries to come, I have no clue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

People being outnumbered or outgunned frequently find creative ways to keep fighting. Its inherent to people!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As indeed the suicide vest bomber stylie was popularised by Tamil separatists in Ceylon, not Islamic extremists.

Gosh, it's almost as if Muslims are human beings, not some kind of weird alien that cannot be understood and simply must be crushed like locusts or cockroaches or something.

Political violence in the form of terrorism and the concept of sacrificing oneself for a greater goal have a long history and there are many trends and organizations visible throughout history. Where people get this idea from that its just the Muslims, or that for some reason Muslims are going to keep up Islamic terrorism for centuries to come, I have no clue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Even though they never made them first ots safe to say the Islamic terrorists have made very very good use of the designs others made.

Suicide bombs. Drones modified, cars, trucks and such.
They have been rather adept at using them to great effect to kill people.

People being outnumbered or outgunned frequently find creative ways to keep fighting. Its inherent to people!

True the west has all manner of fancy tech and machines.
Industry and advanced machines.

They have managed to hold up advanced armies with basic tools, pick up trucks, and outdated soviet relics.
Given modern wars have to seem to be so much more blured on lines of the combatent, the non combatent, military and civilain buildings.
Enemies have no cities. Battles are not fight with tanks against tank.

Everything is grey and blurry.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

Continue to ignore the problems of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

Moving past the ridiculous hyperbole and lies. Here are a few by non Muslims/fanatics that killed multiple people
2017 Melbourne- Not a Muslim
2015 Graz- No religious or political motive
2010 Hebei- Not a Muslim
2009 Apeldoorn- No motive, Dutch guy just driving his car into a crowd watching a parade
2008 Akihabara- Not a Muslim

I could go on, but nothing more is needed to reveal your obvious lie. The whole style might have not even originated in the Muslim world because the first recorded use of this kind of truck attack was in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly.

Edit: also if you quote me Dailymail as a reliable source why bother?

Yes, human beings are wicked and violent, we all know that. But radical islam is a problem, I'm only asking to be harsher on those ones who are linked to fanatism. Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence, there's someone responsability if they managed to kill people. You also have to consider the foreing fighters, thousands of people (and many from your wonderful country) that joined the IS and massacred people in syria and iraq, you may not have witnessed any casualty in your country ma a lot of people grown there are responsible for the worst atrocities. We're talking about a system, not random people that commit acts of violence. The human nature cannot be changed, there will always be the wicked, the disturbed and the violent individuals, and we must do everything we can to prevent tragedies and punish the responsbile. But this is different, it's something organized that involves social, religious and political motivations.

You sound like "we shouldn't have fought nazism because many other people killed each other basing on race/nationality".

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

 Blackie wrote:


As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

 Blackie wrote:


2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

Your own link says that he claimed to be a member of at least two religions at the same time and that he had known mental and drug abuse issues and the conclusion you draw is that "yep, he's muslim!"? Good grief.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/europe/sweden-stockholm-truck-attack/index.html

Stockholm (CNN)A man arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses after the Stockholm truck attack is from the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan and was known to intelligence services, Swedish authorities said.

Of course radical Islamism is a problem. Every radical cause that gets to the point of committing violence is a problem.

The guy was supposedly butt-hurt about not getting a residency visa in Sweden.

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence

Do you have a source on this? I've not seen it mentioned anywhere that this guy was known by intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/europe/sweden-stockholm-truck-attack/index.html

Stockholm (CNN)A man arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses after the Stockholm truck attack is from the central Asian republic of Uzbekistan and was known to intelligence services, Swedish authorities said.

Cheers.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

"consistently kept calling".... I used that word only one time. And it wasn't a matter of intellectual capabilities but it was about education, competence and skills.

He's saying that we are willing to accept the problem because otherwise we would be racist. Because not only radical muslims kill people we can't be harsher against islamic fanatics otherwise we'd be racist. I can't agree with that. If there are many different problems solving one is still better than solving none, the idea of not solving this one because in western societies there are also other issues (with criminals or people with mental problems o violent ones) is absurd.

Fighting radicalism is a duty, religious fanatism is not allowed in any democracy.

Yes, christian and jewish fanatism also exist, but shouldn't we fight islamic fanatism because other fanatisms exist? Having only the first two types is better than having all three of them, and fighting the latter is a priority right now because it's way more dangerous.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Everybody can commit these vehicle attacks, and it surely not just Islamic terrorists or migrants doing so.

But apparently only islamic fanatists do it.

Continue to ignore the problems of letting these people burn europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393590/Police-officers-Stockholm-attacked-STONES.html

Moving past the ridiculous hyperbole and lies. Here are a few by non Muslims/fanatics that killed multiple people
2017 Melbourne- Not a Muslim
2015 Graz- No religious or political motive
2010 Hebei- Not a Muslim
2009 Apeldoorn- No motive, Dutch guy just driving his car into a crowd watching a parade
2008 Akihabara- Not a Muslim

I could go on, but nothing more is needed to reveal your obvious lie. The whole style might have not even originated in the Muslim world because the first recorded use of this kind of truck attack was in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly.

Edit: also if you quote me Dailymail as a reliable source why bother?

Yes, human beings are wicked and violent, we all know that. But radical islam is a problem, I'm only asking to be harsher on those ones who are linked to fanatism. Both this uzbek and the london killer were known to the intelligence, there's someone responsability if they managed to kill people. You also have to consider the foreing fighters, thousands of people (and many from your wonderful country) that joined the IS and massacred people in syria and iraq, you may not have witnessed any casualty in your country ma a lot of people grown there are responsible for the worst atrocities. We're talking about a system, not random people that commit acts of violence. The human nature cannot be changed, there will always be the wicked, the disturbed and the violent individuals, and we must do everything we can to prevent tragedies and punish the responsbile. But this is different, it's something organized that involves social, religious and political motivations.

You sound like "we shouldn't have fought nazism because many other people killed each other basing on race/nationality".

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

2017 melbourne killer was actually a muslim, by the way.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4139828/The-online-rants-Melbourne-CBD-car-attacker.html

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right? Right?


As always you try to twist and turn my arguments about me equating Muslims with radicals. You debate with the lowest standards, twisting my words, misrepresenting my arguments and flat out lying, for the sake of the argument I would advise that you let those things slide.

Also congratulations your daily mail source claims he might have been a Muslim, you totally defeated one of my examples in my argument that others besides radical Muslims commit vehicle attacks!!

 Blackie wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Disciple of Fate isn't the one who consistently kept calling people "savages" or questioning their intellectual capabilities for being from the third world. You're completely misrepresenting his (?) argument in a manner that's making it clear that you've completely misunderstood it in the first place. Disciple isn't arguing that the only way to defeat the problem is to deport every muslim in Europe, he's pointing out the absurdity of such a stance.

"consistently kept calling".... I used that word only one time. And it wasn't a matter of intellectual capabilities but it was about education, competence and skills.

He's saying that we are willing to accept the problem because otherwise we would be racist. Because not only radical muslims kill people we can't be harsher against islamic fanatics otherwise we'd be racist. I can't agree with that. If there are many different problems solving one is still better than solving none, the idea of not solving this one because in western societies there are also other issues (with criminals or people with mental problems o violent ones) is absurd.

Fighting radicalism is a duty, religious fanatism is not allowed in any democracy.

Yes, christian and jewish fanatism also exist, but shouldn't we fight islamic fanatism because other fanatisms exist? Having only the first two types is better than having all three of them, and fighting the latter is a priority right now because it's way more dangerous.

I'm saying we should not accept the problem of Islamic terrorism, but at the same time we should not stop accepting Muslims and refugees in need because of the tiny % that might turn out to be terrorists or turn into terrorists. We already sentence these people to prison and bomb them in the Middle East, what exactly does being even more harsher entail? The problem is that the issue of Islamic terrorism has a basis in other societal issues, if you try to solve these issues too, it will be a lot easier to reduce Islamic terrorism as most of the people joining that 'career' aren't exactly society's rich and successful. Find out why people go into terrorism and try to tackle those issues. Its what I have been arguing for since the beginning of my stay on Dakka. Meanwhile you have come in with your comments about savages, Eurabia and Muslim wanting to overthrow Western society. Your arguments have demonstrated nothing but your own ignorance while accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. You make wild claims and accusations without any basis in reality and then attack other people based on how you twist their words. Back up your claims, prove that Europe isn't doing enough against radical Islamic terrorism and find some sources that aren't completely biased.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The guy was supposedly butt-hurt about not getting a residency visa in Sweden.

And then this proves. He was wanted it seems for deportation. So he must of done more than be refused.
He should of probably been secured from decision to deportation as a matter of course in sense.

Cruel but I mean. People are bot likely to turn up to flight on time with a suitcase.

His citizenship application failed in June, he was still there in December when they gave him four weeks notice to leave. Yet three months on he killing people with a truck. The failure to enforce rejected applications is a problem. Across the EU only about 40% of failed asylum applications result in deportation. It pays off to make spurious applications, not comply with authorities and resist removal. More often than not, you get to remain in spite of a failed application.

I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
His citizenship application failed in June, he was still there in December when they gave him four weeks notice to leave. Yet three months on he killing people with a truck. The failure to enforce rejected applications is a problem. Across the EU only about 40% of failed asylum applications result in deportation. It pays off to make spurious applications, not comply with authorities and resist removal. More often than not, you get to remain in spite of a failed application.

This is a real problem.
There should of been stronger enforcement of the law.
And giving them notice... Jeez that's just asking them to escape if there free n loose!

If your awaiting deportation there needs to be some kind of semi secured process to stop this happening.

Nothing will change from this. Nothing has been learnt.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

In Sweden's case though, how on earth are we going to force Uzbekistan to agree?

If you put these people on a plane and send them back they will be stuck in limbo like the people stuck at US airports during Trump's travel ban. Forcing them back onto a country will certainly not improve relations while improving those relations with EU neighbours is a key EU goal. We also need their help in stemming the flow of boat refugees as we try to cooperate with them. If you start forcing this they might as well start providing these people boats. What if those people for example would never commit an attack? How many have sympathies but don't act on them, would we condemn all of them to limbo? For thought crimes?

There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

 thekingofkings wrote:
There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

Not exactly. Germany while often blamed had little to do with them entering the EU. Germany just granted them permission from moving on from Greece because the system there basically collapsed. Once they are in EU borders they have to be processed first and you can't just send them back. Are you going to tell these people to swim back or turn their sinking boat around? Furthermore it might be difficult to establish their identity and without knowing their nationality a country isn't just going to accept random deportees.

 thekingofkings wrote:
There really is no good answer here, but it does boil down to the ugly choice of "serve your people or serve thiers" citizens rightly expect their govts to serve them first. keeping them out it is likely the cruel but "correct" answer to begin with. You dont have to deport someone you dont let in to begin with. But there the EU is an achilles heel, Germany can just let em in and then send em along at will.

Citizens expect there elected govements to honour there requirement to defend there people from hostile threat and enemy within and without.
We expect we are safe to go shopping or cross a bridge without risk of being run over by a terrorist.

And yes its difficult but what choices. Deport. Lock them up forever. Leave em on q short leash for rest of life under watch
2 of this are rather expensive too!

A story came out, not sure of true of Kuwait origin "refugee in Calais"
Ummm... I don t see a war in Kuwait.
Surely in that case deportation if thr fail case should happen.

Its not like Syria or Iraq.
Those cases make it harder for the genuine ones.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right?

If people that are suspected to be linked to islamic fanatism are free to commit their crimes than europe is too tolerant and must be harsher. Which certainly means changing some laws as you said that we can't uncostitutionally lock up someone, make it constitutional then. And it wouldn't infringe the rights of the majoirty. Countries like tunisia are allied to europe, make them accept their illegals back. Many of the illegals don't arrive to the EU borders, european ships pick them up in african's seas, a few km from where they started their journey, just send them back and establish their identities in lybia, tunisia or egypt. Then, if someone is entitled of the refugee status, he/she can come in the EU as a refugee. Invest in their countries, clean war zones. In the usa there was a few days ago a syrian that thanked trump for bombing assad and he said they want to stay in their country, the refugees are forced to reach western countries, they don't want to be refugees.

Terrorism in europe always had been motivated by local issues, there were never been this kind of terrorism that strucks everywhere for the same ideal, a martyrdom in the name of allah. And islamic fanatism has its origins thousands of years ago, a tolerant nation and a peaceful march won't defeat it.

I don't know if nazis were more, many of them were just germans that defended their country or didn't have the power to oppose the reich. These are people that travel abroad to join a bloody ideal or, even if they stay in europe, they help those terrorists. There seems to be many more radical islamists then real nazis, if you don't consider only the ISIS supporters. As I've said many times ISIS is only a consquence or a part of the problem (like mengele experiments or the SS were only part of the nazism), how many people are killed by islamic fanatism? And as I've told you before the amount of casualties depends on how skilled and resourceful those wicked ones are, but the purpose of those fanatics is the same of nazism in terms of cleaning the impure and making genocides.

I only know that nazism was defeated by penetrating till berlin and ruling germany for over 40 years, the usa are imposing their politics on europe even now. The same thing should be done in syria-iraq, clean those dumps and never leave them.

Even the swedish PM has accepted that their politics were wrong. Being tolerant, open and friendly are important virtues, fighting radicalisms and not accepting the illegals don't go against those values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396224/Sweden-never-mass-immigration-PM-says.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396160/Liberal-Sweden-melting-pot-tolerance.html

Do you have a source for that claim that isn't the Daily Mail? I can't find the claim that Löfven has said that anywhere else, and I trust the Daily Mail about as far as I can throw a 550-pound anvil. Considering the lies in those articles (we didn't bloody open our borders to anyone, grow up!) I want extra scrutiny on this claim. There's plenty of sources on him being angry about people who've had their asylum requests denied remaining in the country, but I can't find anything about the whole "we won't go back to that" part.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I never said radical Islam wasn't a problem, I warned against making mountains out of molehills. People always say we aren't doing enough or aren't harsh enough, can you back up why that is? I am fully aware of European nationals and Dutch travelling to join ISIS, did you also know that they are being put on trial in absentia? Almost every form of political violence is organized, saying its just Islamic radicalism is a bit weak.

My argument is we shouldn't have treated everyone like Nazi's if in your alternate dimension only 0.000something percent were actually responsible. You are comparing mass genocide to a relatively small problem in Europe however you want to twist it, sometimes an attack causes many casualties, but terrorism is nothing new in Europe and I don't see why we need radical changes are needed to infringe on the rights of the majority? You do realize a lot more Germans were involved with the Nazi regime than Muslims are with IS in Europe right?

If people that are suspected to be linked to islamic fanatism are free to commit their crimes than europe is too tolerant and must be harsher. Which certainly means changing some laws as you said that we can't uncostitutionally lock up someone, make it constitutional then. And it wouldn't infringe the rights of the majoirty. Countries like tunisia are allied to europe, make them accept their illegals back. Many of the illegals don't arrive to the EU borders, european ships pick them up in african's seas, a few km from where they started their journey, just send them back and establish their identities in lybia, tunisia or egypt. Then, if someone is entitled of the refugee status, he/she can come in the EU as a refugee. Invest in their countries, clean war zones. In the usa there was a few days ago a syrian that thanked trump for bombing assad and he said they want to stay in their country, the refugees are forced to reach western countries, they don't want to be refugees.

Terrorism in europe always had been motivated by local issues, there were never been this kind of terrorism that strucks everywhere for the same ideal, a martyrdom in the name of allah. And islamic fanatism has its origins thousands of years ago, a tolerant nation and a peaceful march won't defeat it.

The problem is that you just assume Europe is too tolerant and not that these people are slipping through the existing cracks. Where is your proof that Europe is too tolerant. You are saying you want to lock people up for though crimes, what if someone is sympathetic to IS or even supportive towards IS, they might not do anything wrong or they might step in a truck tomorrow. If they haven't done anything wrong will you just make it constitutional to lock them up. This is going very much in dictatorship territory where your ideas make you an enemy of the state.

Making Tunisia accept their illegals back is not the problem. Making them accept the ones that commit crimes or are suspected of terrorist sympathies is the problem, as well as proving they are from that particular country. We can't just force those countries and if you think we can you have a very simplistic view of international politics. Again you say send them back when we intercept them, but do you realize how difficult that is. Once they are outside of territorial waters none of the North African states is going to say 'yeah they came from my country', they are going to say prove it and then you are left with little alternative. Furthermore you would be sending legitimate refugees back which is considered very wrong.

The Syria thing is just ridiculous. Unless the West goes in there and deposes Assad'which seems very unlikely to happen those 5 million Syrians that fled the country will not return to the Assad regime. You know why I can make that guess? Because a vast amount of Syrians is also internally displaced but moved to government areas, which those 5 million didn't want. Of course we need to invest and help the Middle East and Africa, but there just isn't enough money in the world to get them to where we are tomorrow. And until they get to where we are today, they will keep coming to Europe for a better life.

Terrorism has not always been motivated by local issues. Don't just lie like that, the 70's were socialist/communist inspired terror. It was the ame idea all over the globe from communist insurgents in India, Colombia, parts of Africa and Europe. All having the same socialist ideals. Back up your claims on Islamic fanaticism, Christianity or Judaism have those same origins and history. We have seen phases of those kinds of terrorism and now Islam is having its phase of terrorism, this is nothing new or alarming. Its just business as usual unless you want to back up your claims and point out Islamic terrorism on similar scale in history for in example the Ottoman or Iranian empires? Indonesia and the Phillipenes suffer from Islamic terrorism too, but notice how much smaller the problems are there compared to the Middle East. Circumstances matter, its not just about Islam.

 Blackie wrote:
I don't know if nazis were more, many of them were just germans that defended their country or didn't have the power to oppose the reich. These are people that travel abroad to join a bloody ideal or, even if they stay in europe, they help those terrorists. There seems to be many more radical islamists then real nazis, if you don't consider only the ISIS supporters. As I've said many times ISIS is only a consquence or a part of the problem (like mengele experiments or the SS were only part of the nazism), how many people are killed by islamic fanatism? And as I've told you before the amount of casualties depends on how skilled and resourceful those wicked ones are, but the purpose of those fanatics is the same of nazism in terms of cleaning the impure and making genocides.

I only know that nazism was defeated by penetrating till berlin and ruling germany for over 40 years, the usa are imposing their politics on europe even now. The same thing should be done in syria-iraq, clean those dumps and never leave them.

Oh oh oh Blackie don't start arguing with me on Nazi's if you don't know about them. The vast amount of soldiers that served on the Eastern Front either participated or witnessed the huge amount of atrocities that the German army (not just the SS or Nazi's) committed. They actively promoted the myth after the war that their hands were clean and did not want to own up to it until the 90's demolished those myths. Defended their country always sounds so nice untill you see what they actually did 'defending' it. Starve the Soviet population (check), massive represailles against civilians (check), rape (check), execution of POW's (check) etc. A lot of Germans were complicit in the crimes of the Nazi regime even if not Nazi's, just think about the people moving into houses of Jews or taking their stuff.

I'm quite sure your lie that there are more Islamic radicals than Nazi's is correct, seeing as most Nazi's are dead 70+ years later. Can you point out to me that there are more active Islamic radicals that want to commit attacks then there were Nazi's though? You can't just compare Islamic terrorism to Nazi's because they strive for the same goals, else I will start claiming racist white power movements are equally a problem and we should focus more on them, maybe start arresting the racists as they give sympathy to those causes? Am I being harsh enough now as a European? Until you can prove it to me, scale certainly matters.

Ok great so now we are talking about a political regime, Nazi-Germany, compared with a Political-Religious ideology. Are we going to ask the American and British to firebomb European neighbourhoods in the fight against Radical Islam, cause that's what they did in their fight against Nazi-Germany. If we clean the 'dumps' of Syria and Iraq it will certainly not stop radical Islam, yet clearing out Nazi-Germany stopped Nazism as a significant ideology. Your comparison is completely flawed and I advise you to drop it as you only used it to slander me in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Even the swedish PM has accepted that their politics were wrong. Being tolerant, open and friendly are important virtues, fighting radicalisms and not accepting the illegals don't go against those values.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396224/Sweden-never-mass-immigration-PM-says.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396160/Liberal-Sweden-melting-pot-tolerance.html

Do you have a source for that claim that isn't the Daily Mail? I can't find the claim that Löfven has said that anywhere else, and I trust the Daily Mail about as far as I can throw a 550-pound anvil. Considering the lies in those articles (we didn't bloody open our borders to anyone, grow up!) I want extra scrutiny on this claim. There's plenty of sources on him being angry about people who've had their asylum requests denied remaining in the country, but I can't find anything about the whole "we won't go back to that" part.

Blackie will never own up to the gak he posts. I still haven't gotten a decent reply to the racist as feth right wing piece of gak article calling the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands the capital of 'Eurabia'. Just for, and get this, the mayor being a Muslim (I know I know, he actaully said more, but my brain started to melt half way through all the lies), I guess the author would have been totally fine with a Christian, even though the man is as moderate as you can get even telling people of his ethnicity to go back if they don't like the Netherlands, which Blackie certainly must like, if he bothered to read up before posting racist gak to Dakka.

Blackie give us some real sources to back up your claims besides the daily mail. Give me one reputable source also claiming the PM said that. So far there has been nothing but biased propaganda coming from your side that you drop like its hot once people counter it. Own up to the gak you post man.

We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was incompatible too, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam.

Only if we assume that Islam is causative of terrorism.

Well, we are talking about Islamic terrorism. Obvious, other types of terrorism, like the spanish political one of ETA, have other solutions and causes.

Islam its the foundation used to push a political and religious agenda manifested in the form of terrorism. Just as other religions in the past have been the cores and foundations of other types of atrocyties.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was too incompatible, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

Well said is all I can say.

Christianity is not based on "prophets" its based on the teaching of Jesus Christ, the living son of God.


...And Paul's letters to the laundry, dry cleaners, Bob from accounting etc etc.

But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

 Galas wrote:
But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

The disciples are not teaching. They are putting forth the events that happened with Christ (thats the argument anyway). Except for Paul's letter to the window washer. I really can't see how that relates.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Galas wrote:
But the new Testament its based in the texts written by the disciples of Jesus Christ, thats where the differences comes.

The Old Testament that Judaism follow and the Quorah are bot interpreted as direct words of God.

But you are right, I have explained it badly before, sorry!

The disciples are not teaching. They are putting forth the events that happened with Christ (thats the argument anyway). Except for Paul's letter to the window washer. I really can't see how that relates.

Yeah, JC seems to be that genuinely cool, charismatic guy in highschool who everyone feels is their best friend, and Paul is the stick-up-arse gakhead who everyone dislikes, but puts up with because JC brought him.

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

 Galas wrote:
We can't try to solve the Terrorism problem without understanding the Islam. And understanding the Islam its understanding how it is not comparable to even the worst times of christianity.

In a personal level, I despise every mayor monotheistic religion, but they are very different. Judaism and Islam are based on the word of God, thats why those religions can't be reformed to be more "pacific".

In the other hand, Christianity its based in the words of "Prophets" and how they interpreted the word of God. Thats why Christianity has lived so many excisions, because christianity can be reinterpreted and thus, it can be reformed throught the years.

If we wan't to fix this problem, we should obligate every forengeir, not to forget his culture, but to addapt to our legislations and judicial systems. To embrace our European values of personal freedom, democracy, respect and non-violence. In fact, those values even need to be remembered to our own European citicens, because they are so easy forgotten.

And we have to understand that Islam, as an religion and ideology,at his more fundamental core (Muslisms can live in Europe and totally embrace our values, just like you see Christians no practitioners), its totally incompatible with those european values.

Christianity was incompatible too, but as I said early, it has been reformed througth the years, and many branches have originated from those reforms. As a hard-core Atheist I have been slaped in the face many times, being remembered myself that despise all the bad things Christianity has done, its because of his core values that we have the society we have today. Its something that inside me burns, but I have to recognice that its the truth.

 Galas wrote:
Well, we are talking about Islamic terrorism. Obvious, other types of terrorism, like the spanish political one of ETA, have other solutions and causes.

Islam its the foundation used to push a political and religious agenda manifested in the form of terrorism. Just as other religions in the past have been the cores and foundations of other types of atrocyties.

Leaving personal feelings about religion aside. I don't see why Islam is necessarily that much worse than Christianity, horrible and monstrous things have been done in the name of both.

All religions can be interpeted how people want to live. Some Christians take the Bible much more strictly and some Muslims the Quran. The problem is that crazy or power hungry people will always find a way to read those things in a way to fit their world view. Just look at the Buddhists murdering people in Burma. Most people/Muslims that come to live in Europe adapt to our judicial and legislative systems well enough. The problem is not that its the foreigners doing it though, the worst attacks have been committed by second and third generation Europeans. They posses the connections and knowledge about the country to do more than lash out in a truck (London, Madrid, Paris, Brussels).

Islam is not incompatible with the Western world unless you start taking what the holy texts say literally, but then almost all religions will start having issues as they tend to include some pretty horrible stuff every 'normal' Muslim or Christian will tell you is outdated or meant differently. Look at the hijab for example, it should be to promote modesty, but how many Muslim girls wear make up, which kind of defeats the point of a hijab. Just saying that Christianity has reformed is such a non-statement. It took centuries of blood and violence to reform it on a scale Islam will never have to reform in Europe and this reform is usually linked to the development of political situations and economic outlook.

Furthermore the idea that Islamic terrorism is intrinsically linked to Islam is also quite a bit flawed if their actions are looked at. IS for example was created due to political differences with Al-Qaeda. They denounced him as a heretic but Al-Baghdadi wanted to gain more power and create his own state to rule over, publicly breaking with his leaders to escape Iraq (where he was getting hammered) instead of diligently continuing the holy war against against the Iraqi heretics and American infidels, preferring to cross the border to Syria and start murdering other Sunni's to carve out his little empire.
It is true some chumps might do these things out of religious conviction, but take for example suicide bombings. We all have heard the martyr-virgin story, but many suicide bombers are actually people pressured into it. I'm talking about disabled people, children and foreign fighters. Those European Jihadists don't exactly want to go there to get themselves blown up (why not do that here?) but want to live the live of the conquering master with a bunch of sex slaves and 'respect' they feel they weren't getting here. That's why Europeans committing attacks here import people from over there and people there try to import people from over here. Its a lot easier to get people to blown themselves up once they are isolated and desperate. The ones most prominent in terrorist organizations are always the most keen to let others do the dying. Religious conviction is an easy tool, but not something that they themselves exactly overflow with. Just think about Bin-Laden, why mope around his compound as a sad old insignificant man, if he could have gotten that sweet martyr deal? Maybe he wasn't such a true believer after all. All kinds of terrorism frequently have a deeper political goal and many of the people wanting to be terrorists aren't really that keen on dying for their cause. This goes beyond religion, it is an expression of culture and identity that ties people together in an area that is weak nationally speaking or based on 'tribal' identity, its a useful tool, but don't forget Europe went from religion to nationalism in favourite cause of war, which can already been seen in part in the Middle East.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

Is North Africa interested in relations with Europe?

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

I'm just going to add, power is the cause for Islamic terror. Everybody want's a slice of power or country to rule over. Don't get your way? Find the cause that might attract/rally the most people who feel undervalued/repressed. Its how the Jewish population in the mandate of Palestine founded Isreal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

If someone comes from a country they should be deported back there. It doesn't seem right that as soon as a country moves someone on they wash their hands of them and can refuse responsibility for having had them in their country. This means that countries like Tunisia can just funnel people through and refuse to take them back. That's not acceptable, and maybe makes you wonder if anyone should be allowed to enter Europe from Tunisia if they're going to refuse to take back illegitimate entries.

Is North Africa interested in relations with Europe?

Well unless you advise they go the route of Turkey or Libya, which is not at all in our interest, be my guest in explaining your plans.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Where did he say we should let them drown? Provide the quotation that specifically says that we should let them drown.

We can pick them up at sea, treat injuries etc, and them immediately take them back to north Africa. Make it abundantly clear that the crossing is futile.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Where did he say we should let them drown? Provide the quotation that specifically says that we should let them drown.

We can pick them up at sea, treat injuries etc, and them immediately take them back to north Africa. Make it abundantly clear that the crossing is futile.

He said turn them around, how often have you not heard of a boat already sinking or picking people out of the water to rescue them? How do you turn those people around exactly? He was wilfully being coy with what he exactly meant. He also never said what you're suggesting, which is already occurring btw, there just aren't enough ships to patrol and stop every boat from reaching Lampedusa or other islands. Also letting people on board and then trying to turn that ship around to Libya with a few hundred desperate people seems like a recipe for disaster. Some sources of current efforts, with darker side effects:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/world/europe/can-eu-shift-migrant-crisis-to-the-source-in-libya-the-odds-are-long.html?_r=0
https://www.amnesty.nl/actueel/eu-plans-to-close-sea-border-would-lock-refugees-and-migrants-in-horrendous-conditions-in-libya

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Is all you can offer as reply of this "quality" ?

Usually your course as far as I have followed this thread: false claim of people beeing liars, having no sources.

And this time, its: " Hey look , he want those poor people drowned, see what a great person i am and how evil he is"

May I suggest to keep your hands of that keyboard if you can't provide something worth saying?

I mean, I did just ignore all of that crap you posted about parts of Europe that aren't the Netherlands and which you seem to have no clue about.

I don't know if youre just bored, ignorant, too fanatic or whatever to post the way you do. But do us a favor. Change your silly ways. Its not funny. Not cool.

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 1hadhq wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I have stated this in other threads and I will do so again. Deporting someone sounds quite easy, but you need to have a country that is willing to receive them, think for example about the Guantanamo Bay inmates. If this person had connections to IS for example Uzbekistan would certainly not want him back.

In the case of the Berlin attack, Italy had tried to deport the attacker back to Tunisia. But Tunisia just said no and that's where the problem starts. What do you do with people that no one wants to take? Unconstitutionally lock them up forever?

We say No. Like Tunisia says No.
See?
Equal right to refuse to have them.

Say no to what? People illegally crossing the Med with no identification? Where are you going to send them back to? Its a nice way to ruin your relationship with countries you need to work with to reduce the flow across the Med. Seeing as how Tunisia is still willing to make an effort to become a Western inspired democracy, maybe not push them back into the arms of another dictator or more theocratic regime.

Mediterranean = international waters.

So we just turn them 180° around.

Your argument is: Tunisia doesn't identify a person as tunisian > person does not enter Tunisia. So if we don't identify this person as from any European country > no entry to europe.
As I say. Things go both ways.

Ah so its the nice and infamous let them drown argument again! Those people couldn't make it back on their floating wreckage passed off as a boat even if they wanted too.

Man, your so edgy and cool and totally not undermining decades of social and international norms!

Is all you can offer as reply of this "quality" ?

Usually your course as far as I have followed this thread: false claim of people beeing liars, having no sources.

And this time, its: " Hey look , he want those poor people drowned, see what a great person i am and how evil he is"

May I suggest to keep your hands of that keyboard if you can't provide something worth saying?

I mean, I did just ignore all of that crap you posted about parts of Europe that aren't the Netherlands and which you seem to have no clue about.

I don't know if youre just bored, ignorant, too fanatic or whatever to post the way you do. But do us a favor. Change your silly ways. Its not funny. Not cool.

Seeing as your suggestions had no content or basis in reality at all I didn't think more needed to be said. However I can expand if I really need to.
First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying:

As always you seem to not understand that radical muslims are not the average common muslims, and you think it's probably impossible to defeat the problem without deporting every muslim in europe and bombing every muslim country.

He also lied about Islamic radical being the only people committing vehicle attacks, which he could have googled as false with 1 minute. Nothing I have said has been untrue or not backed up by me in conversations with him. If you however want to debate me how he twists my words, lies about me and flat out presents biased or wrong sources you are completely free to do so.

I have always backed up my statements with sources when required. Which I have given to Jhe who did indeed have a more solid argument beyond 'turn them around'. But please tell me more what I am ignorant about, I would love to hear your assumptions and prove to you that I'm willing to learn if I truly 'have no clue'.

So far you post short statements trying to be funny knowing full well what the implications are and haven't even bothered to look into the legality of what you argue. But sure, I'm the one with 'no clue'.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying...

I have to admit that I'm too lazy to argue properly about all this issues. I won't judge anyone by a few statements of the internet but generally speaking I can say that people that don't hang out or maybe even date people of foreign language or actual foreigners are racist, especially in those countries with high levels of immigration, where is impossible to not have any contact with the minorities unless they avoid them on purpose. Last time I went to stockholm (2012) on vacation I visited many clubs/discos and I saw a significant number of arabs and africans, all males of course, and all among themselves. I haven't seen a single mixed couple or group of friends with multiple ethnicities. in denmark it's even worse, with danish people that don't give any confidence to non danish ones. At all.

Many europeans/americans are extremely racist and hypocrite, on one side they advocate a multicultural society, on the other side they only stay among purebloods. And this is one of the main reasons why radical islam is growing in europe, foreigners and local muslism don't feel like they belong to those countries and many fanatisms are allowed in the fear of generating a racist backlash. Being tolerant as a nation means nothing if there are separate communities in one country with incompatible values.

In fact the highest number of european foreign fighters come from those nations that are considered more tolerant, belgium, holland, denmark and sweden. In italy we have approx 1.5 million muslims, which are certainly more (or at least a comparable number) than how many sweden and holland have, considering the total population of those two countries, approx 10 millions and 6.5 millions. Only 87 foreign fighters (the official number given by the government considering 2011-2015) fled from italy to join ISIS though.

https://www.rferl.org/a/foreign-fighters-syria-iraq-is-isis-isil-infographic/26584940.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

True, but laws can be changed if they're wrong or outdated. We paid billions to turkey to send the illegals back, and since egypt, tunisia and even the legit lybian government are allied to western countries I don't get why EU can't do the same things with those countries. And stop calling refugees people that cross the sea, they are illegals. Some of them also a refugee. The ones that come to italy are not entitled to get the refugee status with percentages of more than 80%.

Oh good. More far right drivel from Blackie.

Refugees are something defined, and agreed upon at an international level.

You saying otherwise doesn't change that.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

"Islam" is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, corporate imperialism is.

Oh, please do explain this one to us in depth.

I can use a laugh.

Well, do you think it because they hate our freedom?

No, of course not. "the West" has been interfering in their backyard for decades, sometimes more than a hundred years. They have stuff we want, and we want it cheaply. Rubber, oil, diamonds, rare minerals, cheap labour, etc.

"the West" actively undermines local attempts to organize ownership, resist exploitation, and generally use their own resources to enrich their populace.

I'm not singling out the US for this. It's not really a nation thing, it's an ultra-rich thing.

But you know all this, you're a smart guy.

Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

The problem here is seeing this as an "its Islam! No, its the Imperial Colonialism!"

Everything has a part to explain why things are how they are now. We just can't ignore a part of the facts because they don't fit our ideological views. Thats how things don't get better. Like it or not, the moral values and the political ideology that its the Islam has a part. The Colonialism and post-colonialism and Cold War interventions has another part. Everything its important to know the root of the problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

Greenland, Iceland and Vinland don't count.

Those were Norwegian, not Swedish. We had "proper" colonies, St. Bartholomew in the Caribbean for example.

Looks like they had an Africa colony for 13 years in the 1600s. Thats....thin.

Oh wow. Ok now I know the trivia question of name which country Denmark actually beat in a war...

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The liars thing and having no sources is easily backed up. I have dealt with Blackie before posting completely flawed sources. Furthermore he has twisted and flat-out lied about my positions to try and present me as a bigot like saying...

I have to admit that I'm too lazy to argue properly about all this issues. I won't judge anyone by a few statements of the internet but generally speaking I can say that people that don't hang out or maybe even date people of foreign language or actual foreigners are racist, especially in those countries with high levels of immigration, where is impossible to not have any contact with the minorities unless they avoid them on purpose. Last time I went to stockholm (2012) on vacation I visited many clubs/discos and I saw a significant number of arabs and africans, all males of course, and all among themselves. I haven't seen a single mixed couple or group of friends with multiple ethnicities. in denmark it's even worse, with danish people that don't give any confidence to non danish ones. At all.

Many europeans/americans are extremely racist and hypocrite, on one side they advocate a multicultural society, on the other side they only stay among purebloods. And this is one of the main reasons why radical islam is growing in europe, foreigners and local muslism don't feel like they belong to those countries and many fanatisms are allowed in the fear of generating a racist backlash. Being tolerant as a nation means nothing if there are separate communities in one country with incompatible values.

Back up this load of garbage, seriously. What is your proof people up here are less tolerant besides your anecdotal evidence you dont see many interracial couples?

Here is some info on mixed marriages: http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2012/07/mixed-marriages
Here is the actual study: http://epc2012.princeton.edu/papers/120785
See this graph, this is the percentage of mixed couples, you can find it on page 17 of the report, these are the percentages of mixed couples compared to nonn mixed, with the left bar being 2005-2007 and the right 2008-2010

Italy is actually at the bottom end of the list on mixed marriage in Europe, not so tolerant now by your own admission right?

I don't think further words are needed on this waste of space, biased, hateful arguments and anacdotal evidence you couldn't bother to back up. Either argue properly, or start owning up to the easily dismissed arguments.

 Blackie wrote:
In fact the highest number of european foreign fighters come from those nations that are considered more tolerant, belgium, holland, denmark and sweden. In italy we have approx 1.5 million muslims, which are certainly more (or at least a comparable number) than how many sweden and holland have, considering the total population of those two countries, approx 10 millions and 6.5 millions. Only 87 foreign fighters (the official number given by the government considering 2011-2015) fled from italy to join ISIS though.

https://www.rferl.org/a/foreign-fighters-syria-iraq-is-isis-isil-infographic/26584940.html

Why does the amount of foreign fighters indicate how tolerant a country is? Are you really going to start arguing countries like Hungary, Poland or even Russia are more tolerant than France just based on the amount of foreign fighters. Furthermore the amount of Muslims in Italy is misleading because many aren't Italian nationals and therefore would not be counted as an Italian foreign fighter. If looking at CESNUR's 2016 demographic report on minority religions in Italy, the actual % of Muslims amongst Italians is only 0.4% or 245.621. The rest are all considered foreigners i.e. non permanent residents. Other countries certainly have a higher % of nationals being Muslims. But please explain further how the amount of foreign fighters directly correlates with how tolerant society is, cause some really questionable countries can be very tolerant according to you in that case! Furthermore your numbers on the population of the Netherlands are hilariously bad, we have 17.1 million people, 5 seconds on wikipedia could have told you that over your 6.5 million, with our population of native Muslims being 825.000 or four times higher than that of the native Italian population while being four times smaller pop wise. This is exactly my problem with how you post, easily and quickly looked up facts just get completely ignored in favour of your arguments.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

First of all turning these people back once you're in international waters is flat out illegal. You can't send them back into another nation's territorial waters without creating an incident and technically sending people back into Libya which is suffering from a civil war means you could be sending refugees back into a conflict zone, which is even worse and also illegal.

True, but laws can be changed if they're wrong or outdated. We paid billions to turkey to send the illegals back, and since egypt, tunisia and even the legit lybian government are allied to western countries I don't get why EU can't do the same things with those countries. And stop calling refugees people that cross the sea, they are illegals. Some of them also a refugee. The ones that come to italy are not entitled to get the refugee status with percentages of more than 80%.

Great so international laws regarding the protection of sovereignty of nations or plain preventing the deaths of people are now outdated or wrong? These sorts of things are the foundation of our Western system, we came up with these rules and regulations. Tearing these things down is starting to affect the moral and societal foundations of 'the West'. You can make deals as long as they adhere to the laws, but you can't change these laws. I already posted on why Amnesty International explains why its a bad idea to send people back to Libya (where the vast majority of those crossing the Med come from). The EU already tries to do many things which you could have seen, again by reading my linke NY Times source. I can call people crossing the Med refugees all I want until we establish that those people are migrants and not refugees.

Again you post easily refutable information about '80%'. Here is a source, enjoy: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
Notice that the first 5 countries of origin or 55.5% of arrivals are from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria or Eritria. Now led me just quickly go over those countries. Syria=war, Iraq=war, Afghanistan=war, Nigeria=violence in northern Nigeria, Eritrea=dictatorship. These people could all easily apply for refugee status and receive it. This blows you 80% claim out of the water without me even going on to bother examining the remaining 44.5%.

Do us all a favour, put 10 minutes into google before you post, it could save all of us a lot of effort.

Who do you think sold all the iron for the shackles for the slave trade tho' Frazz?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

Correct, the Netherlands was one of the big boys of colonialism thanks to the Dutch East Indies. We did some truly disgraceful things, but Indonesia was never really a country susceptible to Islamic terrorism. True, it exists, but it is also the largest Muslim country in the world, but it is tied to other factors such as separatism (which was and is a big issues in Indonesia). The history around the independence of Indonesia and the interaction between it, the Netherlands and the U.S.A is also a very curious and interesting part of old and new imperialism. But most people that came from Indonesia to the Netherlands after independence were collaborators or christian minorities. Who btw had their own phase of terrorism in the 70's against the Dutch government (they didn't agree we stopped fighting in Indonesia and wanted their own country as promised).

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

Me: "It's not really a nation thing"

Frazz: Looks for the national angle. Good ol' Frazz.

I was talking generally.

This specific attack seems to be because a guy was cheesed off that his application was denied. Not an elite terror cell, not even a lone wolf really. Just a some gakhead looking to vent his frustration on the world in a big, ugly display.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

Me: "It's not really a nation thing"

Frazz: Looks for the national angle. Good ol' Frazz.

I was talking generally.

This specific attack seems to be because a guy was cheesed off that his application was denied. Not an elite terror cell, not even a lone wolf really. Just a some gakhead looking to vent his frustration on the world in a big, ugly display.

Its a thread on Sweden. Someone posted that it goes back to the West messing with I guess the Middle East/ Africa over the last hundred years. Then I pointed out Sweden wasn't involved in there since the 1600s and only for 13 years.

Then I noted that Sweden lost to Denmark. Then i chuckled murthily whilst eating a maple syrup Oreo (because when you have access to Canadian Oreo type treats that how you roll).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that relates to an attack on Sweden, which had no colonies nor "interference" as far as I can tell way back to pushing Russia around in Peter the Great's time.

We did have a few colonies, but not on the scale of the Netherlands or Belgium, let alone the "big boys".

The number of people who ever heredof that colony must be low. The scandanavian countries are not known for there colonial holdings.
In contrast a old ABC in Britian one has C is for colnies, we have thr most/best on world etc or general pride.

https://rupostcolonial.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/cforcoloniesv1.jpg

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can call people crossing the Med refugees all I want until we establish that those people are migrants and not refugees.

Again you post easily refutable information about '80%'. Here is a source, enjoy: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
Notice that the first 5 countries of origin or 55.5% of arrivals are from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria or Eritria. Now led me just quickly go over those countries. Syria=war, Iraq=war, Afghanistan=war, Nigeria=violence in northern Nigeria, Eritrea=dictatorship. These people could all easily apply for refugee status and receive it. This blows you 80% claim out of the water without me even going on to bother examining the remaining 44.5%.

Do us all a favour, put 10 minutes into google before you post, it could save all of us a lot of effort.

I believe in the opposite, they're illegals until they prove to be refugees. I can join them in one of those ships, but I wouldn't be a refugee for a single moment.

And I still don't understand why it was ok to pay billions to turkey to keep the illegals in awful condition that are comparable to nazi camps and it's outrageous to think that our african allies can't do the same thing. Western societies are based on the USA which have invaded whatever they wanted. But maybe for you it's ok to keep the head under the sand and do nothing to stop wars and atrocities at the borders of our countries, like the dutch onu soldiers did in bosnia. Those blue helmets were not different and less guilty to karadzic and his friends. Western countries are still fighting in afghanistan and even against the ISIS in syria, but only staying in the backfield and bombing sometimes, which in my opinion it's more hypocrite than not fighting at all. Help the legit lybian government to rebuild that country has nothing against western values.

Do your numbers refer to their real nationalities or those ones they claim to have?

Any single article that talk about this matter in my country show different numbers. People from syria and iraq for example are extremely uncommon here despite what that article says, many illegals come from morocco, tunisia, pakistan and bangladesh other to central african countries.

Your article about mixed couple can be criticized too, because many of those mixed couples are composed by people of the same race. In sweden the biggest minority is the finnish community and I hope you don't consider a family composed by a finnish and a swedish a mixed couple. A family with a dutch and an italian is not mixed by any means, unless the dutch is maybe of suriname origins or the italian has north african parents. For mixed couples I mean couples made of people of different races/ethnic groups, not with different nationalities.

I reported my experience because the sweds I met were extremely nice to me and I love that country, but at the same time I've only witnessed a huge number of non EU foreigners without a single blonde guy/woman with blue eyes with them. Same in denmark, with the exception that they're not particularly friendly even with the EU guys there.

Nigeria=violence in northen nigeria : they have the remaining 90% of their country. If in napoli and mafia strong feuds criminal families start a war or increase the current rate of violence (which is currently quite high already), then the citizens should be considered refugees if they ask the status in north europe?

And here it is people, Blackie dropping it like its hot. Want to apologize for basically trying to call Northern Europeans a bunch of white supremacists or Russia more tolerant than France?

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I can call people crossing the Med refugees all I want until we establish that those people are migrants and not refugees.

Again you post easily refutable information about '80%'. Here is a source, enjoy: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
Notice that the first 5 countries of origin or 55.5% of arrivals are from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria or Eritria. Now led me just quickly go over those countries. Syria=war, Iraq=war, Afghanistan=war, Nigeria=violence in northern Nigeria, Eritrea=dictatorship. These people could all easily apply for refugee status and receive it. This blows you 80% claim out of the water without me even going on to bother examining the remaining 44.5%.

Do us all a favour, put 10 minutes into google before you post, it could save all of us a lot of effort.

I believe in the opposite, they're illegals until they prove to be refugees. I can join them in one of those ships, but I wouldn't be a refugee for a single moment.

And I still don't understand why it was ok to pay billions to turkey to keep the illegals in awful condition that are comparable to nazi camps and it's outrageous to think that our african allies can't do the same thing. Western societies are based on the USA which have invaded whatever they wanted. But maybe for you it's ok to keep the head under the sand and do nothing to stop wars and atrocities at the borders of our countries, like the dutch onu soldiers did in bosnia. Those blue helmets were not different and less guilty to karadzic and his friends. Western countries are still fighting in afghanistan and even against the ISIS in syria, but only staying in the backfield and bombing sometimes, which in my opinion it's more hypocrite than not fighting at all. Help the legit lybian government to rebuild that country has nothing against western values.

Do your numbers refer to their real nationalities or those ones they claim to have?

Any single article that talk about this matter in my country show different numbers. People from syria and iraq for example are extremely uncommon here despite what that article says, many illegals come from morocco, tunisia, pakistan and bangladesh other to central african countries.

Your article about mixed couple can be criticized too, because many of those mixed couples are composed by people of the same race. In sweden the biggest minority is the finnish community and I hope you don't consider a family composed by a finnish and a swedish a mixed couple. A family with a dutch and an italian is not mixed by any means, unless the dutch is maybe of suriname origins or the italian has north african parents. For mixed couples I mean couples made of people of different races/ethnic groups, not with different nationalities.

I reported my experience because the sweds I met were extremely nice to me and I love that country, but at the same time I've only witnessed a huge number of non EU foreigners without a single blonde guy/woman with blue eyes with them. Same in denmark, with the exception that they're not particularly friendly even with the EU guys there.

Nigeria=violence in northen nigeria : they have the remaining 90% of their country. If in napoli and mafia strong feuds criminal families start a war or increase the current rate of violence (which is currently quite high already), then the citizens should be considered refugees if they ask the status in north europe?

What you believe or not is irrelevant. Until you can prove these people aren't refugees you can't pretend any of them aren't refugees. And I would advise you join them on one of those boats, it might teach you something about empathy.

The Turkey deal is still very controversial but the situation there is nowhere near as bad as it would be in Libyan camps. These are not in any way similar to Nazi camps and the casual way you thrown around that word makes it seem like you have no idea what it means or the history behind it. Do you know what happened in Nazi camps? Care to provide evidence this happens in Turkish ones? Western society is based on the fact that the US saved our asses after WWII, of course it was out of self interest, but our whole way of life was preserved from Nazi or communist rule.
Thank you for calling Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia as responsible as Mladic. This makes me realize how little you know about European history combined with the Nazi comments. Did Dutchbat not do enough to protect these people? Almost certainly. Did they have enough equipment to prevent what happened? Almost certainly not. Read up on history instead of just accusing people of genocide ok?
Furthermore the West has been active on the front line in these countries but eventually decided to pull troops back. Then serious problems arose again and we are trying to solve it with them, not for them. The problem with just going in and enforcing your will on them regarding things like refugees or migrants crossing might mean they get less friendly towards you.

Read my source, it claims their nationality. Furthermore I'm not going to let you equate random articles on refugee numbers with the numbers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the premier organization in the world dealing with refugees. This is as close to a perfect source as you're going to get. And despite what your anecdotal evidence says, I still backed up my numbers with more than just my eyeballs (your eyeballs having already discredited with the mixed couples argument).

Look at what the report says, these are mixed couples when considering in which country they were born. This is as close as you can get as migrants/refugees aren't born in Sweden. Also the concept of 'race' is getting more and more outdated as people from North-Africa certainly can be considered the same race as Europeans. Brown however much we like to pretend is not a race. Seriously man you just question my source, but provide no backup whatsoever. You give me a study that proves my study wrong and shows that Italy isn't doing worse than most of Europe. I will be waiting..

You report your extremely biased anecdotal evidence, then pretend this is somehow useful as a valid generalisation for entire countries. I don't know how you were trained in debating techniques or providing compelling arguments, but let me tell you that you as a person are as far away removed from convincing as you can get. If you want us to take your statements at face value and holding any merit, you should start bringing up solid arguments.

Ok great, you point out that Nigerians might not be valid refugees, still not getting anywhere close to '80%' being migrants however. Again you take out a single example in a list of them and try to show you won the debate, its bad form man.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Look at what the report says, these are mixed couples when considering in which country they were born. This is as close as you can get as migrants/refugees aren't born in Sweden. Also the concept of 'race' is getting more and more outdated as people from North-Africa certainly can be considered the same race as Europeans. Brown however much we like to pretend is not a race. Seriously man you just question my source, but provide no backup whatsoever. You give me a study that proves my study wrong and shows that Italy isn't doing worse than most of Europe. I will be waiting..

I've only said that I haven't seen mixed couples and mixed groups of friends in sweden but a lot of groups of arabs/africans always among themselves, in any possible place. You basically showed me a study that doesn't deal with that because it only talks about locals and generic foreigners, most of which have a very similar culture to the local one. Find a study that shows how many muslim/christians or atheists are together in rotterdam, in malmoe, molenbeek or luton instead, or any other place. I never said your study was wrong but only that it doesn't deal with what I was saying. And what I was saying is just an impression and an opinion, not the truth. I think that cultures, when are completely different and incompatible, tend to stay separate. That's why you may see a lot of people of foreign origins or actually foreingers, muslims or not, that live like any other resident, having a group of friends (or even a mixed family) that is also composed by locals. I've know several of them where I live/lived. As I said many times it's not a matter of religion or nationality.

But I also think that there are some communities that despise western values and even if they're not terrorists they grow their children with their values, sometimes even illegally like forcing them to wear the veil or locking up in their rooms if they get caught hanging out with western friends. In italy we had three important cases in the last 10 days: a moroccan father that beaten up badly his daughter because he didn't want to wear the veil, a bangladesh family that shaved their head's daughter for the same reason and a sri lanka teenage boy that committed suicide because their parents discovered he had an italian girlfriend and they were planning to arrange his marriage instead. None of these people involved is a terrorist, but any decent democracy can't tolerate cultures like these ones. Now the two girls were taken away from their families and they won't see each other again, and I totally agree about that.

You will never see any articles of studies that report how many muslims behave like these examples.

I think that those people are actually a lot, and I also think that many europeans don't want anything to do with them contributing to keep these communities separated and letting radicalisms grow, but they have to justify their racism saying to everyone that all the illegals are welcome, even if it's not true. A country that allows a nazi march and hate speechs is wrong, there's no freedom of opinions involved here.

The number of radicalized, terrorists, foreign fighters is also influenced on how a country can deal with this issue. Tunisia is a sort of democracy but the majority of the foreign fighters comes from there, because for many muslims a democracy is not tolerable as they wish an islamic state. In countries that let this radicalisms grow a significant number of people decide to flee form that country or commit a terror attack against it. That's entirely on those societies, that do nothing or not enough to fight radicalizations and a also on large part of their citizens that actually doesn't want anything to do with people of different cultures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Ok great, you point out that Nigerians might not be valid refugees, still not getting anywhere close to '80%' being migrants however. Again you take out a single example in a list of them and try to show you won the debate, its bad form man.

Make a phone call to any refugee center in italy, they will tell you where these people really come from, once their real nationality is established.

http://www.lenius.it/migranti-2017/

This is in italian but talks about the arrives in 2017, giving the official percentages: their nationalities are guinea, nigeria, bangladesh, gambia, ivory coast, senegal, morocco. In this order. None of this countries is at war.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Look at what the report says, these are mixed couples when considering in which country they were born. This is as close as you can get as migrants/refugees aren't born in Sweden. Also the concept of 'race' is getting more and more outdated as people from North-Africa certainly can be considered the same race as Europeans. Brown however much we like to pretend is not a race. Seriously man you just question my source, but provide no backup whatsoever. You give me a study that proves my study wrong and shows that Italy isn't doing worse than most of Europe. I will be waiting..

I've only said that I haven't seen mixed couples and mixed groups of friends in sweden but a lot of groups of arabs/africans always among themselves, in any possible place. You basically showed me a study that doesn't deal with that because it only talks about locals and generic foreigners, most of which have a very similar culture to the local one. Find a study that shows how many muslim/christians or atheists are together in rotterdam, in malmoe, molenbeek or luton instead, or any other place. I never said your study was wrong but only that it doesn't deal with what I was saying. And what I was saying is just an impression and an opinion, not the truth. I think that cultures, when are completely different and incompatible, tend to stay separate. That's why you may see a lot of people of foreign origins or actually foreingers, muslims or not, that live like any other resident, having a group of friends (or even a mixed family) that is also composed by locals. I've know several of them where I live/lived. As I said many times it's not a matter of religion or nationality.

But I also think that there are some communities that despise western values and even if they're not terrorists they grow their children with their values, sometimes even illegally like forcing them to wear the veil or locking up in their rooms if they get caught hanging out with western friends. In italy we had three important cases in the last 10 days: a moroccan father that beaten up badly his daughter because he didn't want to wear the veil, a bangladesh family that shaved their head's daughter for the same reason and a sri lanka teenage boy that committed suicide because their parents discovered he had an italian girlfriend and they were planning to arrange his marriage instead. None of these people involved is a terrorist, but any decent democracy can't tolerate cultures like these ones. Now the two girls were taken away from their families and they won't see each other again, and I totally agree about that.

You will never see any articles of studies that report how many muslims behave like these examples.

I think that those people are actually a lot, and I also think that many europeans don't want anything to do with them contributing to keep these communities separated and letting radicalisms grow, but they have to justify their racism saying to everyone that all the illegals are welcome, even if it's not true. A country that allows a nazi march and hate speechs is wrong, there's no freedom of opinions involved here.

The number of radicalized, terrorists, foreign fighters is also influenced on how a country can deal with this issue. Tunisia is a sort of democracy but the majority of the foreign fighters comes from there, because for many muslims a democracy is not tolerable as they wish an islamic state. In countries that let this radicalisms grow a significant number of people decide to flee form that country or commit a terror attack against it. That's entirely on those societies, that do nothing or not enough to fight radicalizations and a also on large part of their citizens that actually doesn't want anything to do with people of different cultures.

Seriously, asking me for more sources? That study is perfectly valid as Arabs and Africans are also foreigners. You want studies directly researching a phenomena about marriage from people who have been here barely a few years? Look here is another study about Moroccan and Turkish Dutch population getting married through a study of the population of Amsterdam, where 10% marries an ethnic Dutch person, which correlates to the 10% mixed marriage from the other study, but in fact gets excluded in that one because we all technically have the same Dutch nationality: http://www.fsw.vu.nl/en/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam_Spdf_tcm250-60417.pdf Sure its difficult to show, but this shows that Muslims and non-Muslims marry. Can you prove to me the marriage levels of Muslims and on-Muslims together are lower than Christians and non-Christians however? Lets not pretend that something as influential in someones life as religion won't strongly affect choice of partner. Here is some interfaith marriage news from the UK: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/12/2012122795639455824.html This is the point where you give me some sources to look over backing up your claims.

Of course you are right that there are some communities that despise the West/Western values or something like that, as those communities provide the breeding ground for home grown terrorism. Parents forcing their children to adhere to their religion is something you can certainly find in any religion. Just as an example, we have a political party with a electorate of about 200.000-250.000 of hardcore Christians who didn't think women were mentally fit to serve in politics until it was declared unconstitutional, yet half their voters are women. We can all find these examples of religious parents doing something terrible to their child mainly because we have a lot of unhinged people in the world. Marrying people off is still quite normal even in non-Muslim part of the world as this ensured the parents got a good price for their 'produce'. I certainly agree that these practices should have no place in the Western world as you shouldn't force anyone to marry based on some parental business contract. However the trouble is that you see only the cases they find out about, without being able to know if and if yes how many others there are, but based on the amount of cases seen each year, its a issue in a small subsection of those communities.

The problem with people around the world is that they like hanging around similar people. Dutch people do it on vacation even. Its completely normal for people who just arrived here to want to feel at home and live with others from their country. The problem starts when racism in the professional sphere starts excluding these people for the ones that seem "European". This is also a good reason why integration is failing, most Europeans think its just going fine, but the reality for these people is different. This is what governments should tackle, stricter laws to give equal opportunities. That's how people integrate, when they have the same chances, they might start feeling more at home. You still keep claiming Europe is wrong or racist for allowing free speech, but the truth is these people don't have anywhere near the electoral majority to vote in the anti-immigration parties, as has been demonstrated by the failure of Wilders.

The issue with foreign fighters is that its difficult to ascertain as to why they left, as you can't exactly ask them. Did they go out of actual conviction, to find a place to belong or just because they think its going to be cool (and yes these 'cool' gakheads sadly exist). Again though where religious radicalism ends and where politically motivated religious radicalism begins is a fine line. I would agree that in Europe its mainly focused on the disillusioned and the religion angle to give them a sense of beloning. But when looking at IS in Syria, it quickly starts to shift to a political power grab and less about being a good religious radical. Another issue that compounds radicalism in Europe is that the technological era makes it possible for these young people to get into contact with like minded people without having to alert their direct environment about it. Just think about your parents/children, how good of an idea do you think they have about who exactly they are talking to? You might not even know that the guy you know from work or school might be radicalizing (of course you might if they decide for the whole beard and outfit get-up they sometimes do) because he is only getting radicalized online without any direct contact in the country he is in. That is the problem with radicalization, its incredibly complex and difficult to identify and solve.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Ok great, you point out that Nigerians might not be valid refugees, still not getting anywhere close to '80%' being migrants however. Again you take out a single example in a list of them and try to show you won the debate, its bad form man.

Make a phone call to any refugee center in italy, they will tell you where these people really come from, once their real nationality is established.

http://www.lenius.it/migranti-2017/

This is in italian but talks about the arrives in 2017, giving the official percentages: their nationalities are guinea, nigeria, bangladesh, gambia, ivory coast, senegal, morocco. In this order. None of this countries is at war.

Uhm Blackie, I don't know how to tell you this man, but your article directly uses my source as its source, the UNHCR. My data was based on the 2016 numbers, while he is using the 2017 numbers so far. I prefer the full year overview. I also look at all Med crossings. Here is the data for Italy for 2016 https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/53633 Now the important part is figure 8, which I unfortunately cannot link. But here it shows that 60% gets rejected while the remaining 40% gets some form of status to remain. So while Italy has a lot of Africans arriving, only 60% gets classified as migrants, not 80%. Why 40% gets a protected status I don't know as you would need to go into a ton more detail that these short overviews don't provide. But nevertheless its still not 80% even if looking at Italy alone.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Uhm Blackie, I don't know how to tell you this man, but your article directly uses my source as its source, the UNHCR. My data was based on the 2016 numbers, while he is using the 2017 numbers so far. I prefer the full year overview. I also look at all Med crossings. Here is the data for Italy for 2016 https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/53633 Now the important part is figure 8, which I unfortunately cannot link. But here it shows that 60% gets rejected while the remaining 40% gets some form of status to remain. So while Italy has a lot of Africans arriving, only 60% gets classified as migrants, not 80%. Why 40% gets a protected status I don't know as you would need to go into a ton more detail that these short overviews don't provide. But nevertheless its still not 80% even if looking at Italy alone.

60% in 2016 is still very high, also considering that is extremely difficult (and expensive) to send them back because we can't use the force. Looking at the nationalities of those who arrived in the last months it's easy to imagine a percentage of 80% if not more, none of their countries is at war. In that 40% there were also included nationalities like albania, which citizens can get the refugee status because of outdated parameters. There are also included some time-limited status, like the one that anis amri got. Not to mention the fake underage boyz which are granted permission to stay, despite they are much older, like the eritrean fake teenage boy that murdered a girl in swedish refugee centre.

That's why the 80% that I claimed is higher than the real numbers, but it's closer to the percentage of the real refugees as many people that actually manage to get that status are not fleeding from wars of persecutions. The percentage I gave was referred to a specific city (it's 83% to be correct) and it was only an estimate of how many illegals are real refugees, not how many manage to get the status.

In italy there's an ongoing trial (the eventual sentences are expected by july) called Mafia Capitale in which several people are accused of human trafficking, providing fake documents to grant the status to the illegals, and also taking a lot of money that came from EU destined for the refugees. We are talking about a business of billions in euro value.

The real refugees are only a tiny percentage of those who come illegally. With the current laws and procedures many illegals manage to get the status even if they shouldn't be entitled to get it, that's why that 60% (which is still high) should be higher and according to the nationalities of those who arrived recently is going to rise.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Seriously, asking me for more sources? That study is perfectly valid as Arabs and Africans are also foreigners. You want studies directly researching a phenomena about marriage from people who have been here barely a few years? Look here is another study about Moroccan and Turkish Dutch population getting married through a study of the population of Amsterdam, where 10% marries an ethnic Dutch person, which correlates to the 10% mixed marriage from the other study, but in fact gets excluded in that one because we all technically have the same Dutch nationality: http://www.fsw.vu.nl/en/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam_Spdf_tcm250-60417.pdf Sure its difficult to show, but this shows that Muslims and non-Muslims marry. Can you prove to me the marriage levels of Muslims and on-Muslims together are lower than Christians and non-Christians however? Lets not pretend that something as influential in someones life as religion won't strongly affect choice of partner. Here is some interfaith marriage news from the UK: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/12/2012122795639455824.html This is the point where you give me some sources to look over backing up your claims.

I said that there are muslims (but foreingers with very different cultures in general) that are perfectly integrated into western societies. Of course there are some mixed couple, I also know some of them. The significant info is the percentage, which in my opinion should be quite higher. The Uk article you linked clearly shows that the majoirty of muslims doesn't want to mix. "According to the UK constabulary, 2,823 honour crimes were reported to the police in 2010 and an estimated 10,000 forced marriages take place in Britain every year ". These things are unacceptable and they're a consequence of letting radicalisms grow.

We can only have opinions about what reasons bring people to leave their country and join a bloody cause in a foreign region. I think some nations decided to put their head under the sand and failed to stop radicalisms and hate speechs because they fear to cause backlash and to get a racist tag. In italy if you get caught with ISIS images on the phone or some like to pages linked to jihadist it's enough to be imprisoned and/or deported. No way people that are linked with terrorism are letting free, even if they have marginal roles. I've seen reports that showed salafi speechs in public squares in germany with regular permissions, I hope they're not allowed now, but how was that possible? Why people that live in rich countries that are considered tolerant, open and modern are eager to follow a radical community and even leaving their country to fight with ISIS, more than other countries that offer less possibilities and an average quality of life that is lower than theese countries? My opinion is these countries failed to fight radicalisms because of some sense of guilt they have towards africans and eastern asians, and so a lot of people that are poisoned by the idea of living under an islamic state at a certain moment of their life they realize that living in a western country is a sin.

In order to fight radicalisms and then terrorism european societies and their citizens need to change, to evolve by refusing a massive immigration of people that can't contribute to our countries, by accelerating the peace process in lybia, syria and iraq, by not being afraid to punish behaviours of the minorities that are incompatible to democracies and by making efforts to consider people with different cultures just like people and not aliens or puppies that need to be saved but we don't want anything to do with them.

Stop. Making. Claims. Without. Sources.

You didn't even acknowledge that you were spouting rubbish with your 80% figure, you just took it in stride and kept going with a bunch of claims that we have no reason to believe beyond your word for it and, as we have demonstrated, your word alone is not worth a lot on this subject.

What claims? That 80% was actually 60% and if you exclude those ones who shouldn't get the status as their countries are not at war like the albanians, and those ones who manage to get the status because they are fake underage boys (like Alexandra Mezher's murderer) or because italian criminals gave them, that percentage is going to rise significantly.

Do you need a source that claims that albania is not at war anymore? Or that there are some fake underage refugees? Or that there is an ongoing trial about human traffickers which is almost every week in the newspapers?

 Blackie wrote:
Or that there are some fake underage refugees?

When you single out specific cases, yes, yes I do. That's how reasonable debate works.

 Blackie wrote:
What claims? That 80% was actually 60% and if you exclude those ones who shouldn't get the status as their countries are not at war like the albanians, and those ones who manage to get the status because they are fake underage boys (like Alexandra Mezher's murderer) or because italian criminals gave them, that percentage is going to rise significantly.

Are they, though? We wouldn't know, because you haven't provided sources to back those claims up. That's my entire point: we only have your word for it. I have no doubt that these factors affect the statistics, but you really can't tell to what degree with just conjecture.

 Blackie wrote:
I said that there are muslims (but foreingers with very different cultures in general) that are perfectly integrated into western societies. Of course there are some mixed couple, I also know some of them. The significant info is the percentage, which in my opinion should be quite higher. The Uk article you linked clearly shows that the majoirty of muslims doesn't want to mix. "According to the UK constabulary, 2,823 honour crimes were reported to the police in 2010 and an estimated 10,000 forced marriages take place in Britain every year ". These things are unacceptable and they're a consequence of letting radicalisms grow.

Here you're implying that Islam is the causal factor behind the honor crimes and forced marriages without having any sort of data on who did what.

 Blackie wrote:
Tunisia is a sort of democracy but the majority of the foreign fighters comes from there, because for many muslims a democracy is not tolerable as they wish an islamic state.

Here you're making a quantifiable claim without providing a source.

I could go on and on and on. You keep making factual statements and just expecting us to take your word for it. That doesn't work.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Uhm Blackie, I don't know how to tell you this man, but your article directly uses my source as its source, the UNHCR. My data was based on the 2016 numbers, while he is using the 2017 numbers so far. I prefer the full year overview. I also look at all Med crossings. Here is the data for Italy for 2016 https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/53633 Now the important part is figure 8, which I unfortunately cannot link. But here it shows that 60% gets rejected while the remaining 40% gets some form of status to remain. So while Italy has a lot of Africans arriving, only 60% gets classified as migrants, not 80%. Why 40% gets a protected status I don't know as you would need to go into a ton more detail that these short overviews don't provide. But nevertheless its still not 80% even if looking at Italy alone.

60% in 2016 is still very high, also considering that is extremely difficult (and expensive) to send them back because we can't use the force. Looking at the nationalities of those who arrived in the last months it's easy to imagine a percentage of 80% if not more, none of their countries is at war. In that 40% there were also included nationalities like albania, which citizens can get the refugee status because of outdated parameters. There are also included some time-limited status, like the one that anis amri got. Not to mention the fake underage boyz which are granted permission to stay, despite they are much older, like the eritrean fake teenage boy that murdered a girl in swedish refugee centre.

That's why the 80% that I claimed is higher than the real numbers, but it's closer to the percentage of the real refugees as many people that actually manage to get that status are not fleeding from wars of persecutions. The percentage I gave was referred to a specific city (it's 83% to be correct) and it was only an estimate of how many illegals are real refugees, not how many manage to get the status.

In italy there's an ongoing trial (the eventual sentences are expected by july) called Mafia Capitale in which several people are accused of human trafficking, providing fake documents to grant the status to the illegals, and also taking a lot of money that came from EU destined for the refugees. We are talking about a business of billions in euro value.

The real refugees are only a tiny percentage of those who come illegally. With the current laws and procedures many illegals manage to get the status even if they shouldn't be entitled to get it, that's why that 60% (which is still high) should be higher and according to the nationalities of those who arrived recently is going to rise.

You can only claim its 60% if looking at Italy alone however. Overall the majority of people coming into Europe are still refugees. Also deportation is using force, you're forcefully deporting someone from a country they want to be in. Sometimes it takes a while to deport people but it still happens if the government thinks its worth it. Again if you looked at the overall numbers in 2017, refugees make up over 50% coming to the EU. The problem with people claiming they are younger than they are is that its almost impossible to prove their real age, I know 30 years olds that are so small and youthful in the face they could and still very often get adressed like they are 14.

You keep going back to this flawed number of 80% as what you consider 'true' refugees doesn't matter. There are experienced organizations deciding on this and they have proven you wrong. I gave you statistics on how many are granted refugee status in a year, the people from you source will only have their papers later this year or next year. Unless it suddenly has some weird spike the 80% is still unreachable.

I don't argue with you that smugglers are the problem. But saying that refugees are a tiny percentage of those coming in illegal is just a plain lie. All these Syrians came illegally even though they would get refugee status. If you don't understand how these terms work, look them up, don't argue from a position of ignorance.

Also here is a nice reason why we shouldn't keep those people held in Libya: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-39109585 At least they won't get raped in European detention centres..

 Blackie wrote:
quote=Disciple of Fate 722751 9305057 a0d53847fffc01e830b8b63ecc690b58.jpg]
Seriously, asking me for more sources? That study is perfectly valid as Arabs and Africans are also foreigners. You want studies directly researching a phenomena about marriage from people who have been here barely a few years? Look here is another study about Moroccan and Turkish Dutch population getting married through a study of the population of Amsterdam, where 10% marries an ethnic Dutch person, which correlates to the 10% mixed marriage from the other study, but in fact gets excluded in that one because we all technically have the same Dutch nationality: http://www.fsw.vu.nl/en/Images/huwelijkenamsterdam_Spdf_tcm250-60417.pdf Sure its difficult to show, but this shows that Muslims and non-Muslims marry. Can you prove to me the marriage levels of Muslims and on-Muslims together are lower than Christians and non-Christians however? Lets not pretend that something as influential in someones life as religion won't strongly affect choice of partner. Here is some interfaith marriage news from the UK: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/12/2012122795639455824.html This is the point where you give me some sources to look over backing up your claims.

I said that there are muslims (but foreingers with very different cultures in general) that are perfectly integrated into western societies. Of course there are some mixed couple, I also know some of them. The significant info is the percentage, which in my opinion should be quite higher. The Uk article you linked clearly shows that the majoirty of muslims doesn't want to mix. "According to the UK constabulary, 2,823 honour crimes were reported to the police in 2010 and an estimated 10,000 forced marriages take place in Britain every year ". These things are unacceptable and they're a consequence of letting radicalisms grow.

We can only have opinions about what reasons bring people to leave their country and join a bloody cause in a foreign region. I think some nations decided to put their head under the sand and failed to stop radicalisms and hate speechs because they fear to cause backlash and to get a racist tag. In italy if you get caught with ISIS images on the phone or some like to pages linked to jihadist it's enough to be imprisoned and/or deported. No way people that are linked with terrorism are letting free, even if they have marginal roles. I've seen reports that showed salafi speechs in public squares in germany with regular permissions, I hope they're not allowed now, but how was that possible? Why people that live in rich countries that are considered tolerant, open and modern are eager to follow a radical community and even leaving their country to fight with ISIS, more than other countries that offer less possibilities and an average quality of life that is lower than theese countries? My opinion is these countries failed to fight radicalisms because of some sense of guilt they have towards africans and eastern asians, and so a lot of people that are poisoned by the idea of living under an islamic state at a certain moment of their life they realize that living in a western country is a sin.

In order to fight radicalisms and then terrorism european societies and their citizens need to change, to evolve by refusing a massive immigration of people that can't contribute to our countries, by accelerating the peace process in lybia, syria and iraq, by not being afraid to punish behaviours of the minorities that are incompatible to democracies and by making efforts to consider people with different cultures just like people and not aliens or puppies that need to be saved but we don't want anything to do with them.