Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The irony is that many of them are indeed fleeing islamic countries because of how horrible they are, but once they arrive here they then want to recreate the exact same system that they fled from. That and they hear stories of the benefits they think they'll be entitled too.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I think someone should explain to Blackie the Sunni/Shia split. It often makes the Protestant/Catholic divide in Ireland/Northern Ireland look like a petty family squabble.

Well, to be fair, the Protestants did not murder Christ's grandson and trigger over a thousand years of war.

Blackie wrote:
No one is fleeing because of islamic governments in which sharia is the law, they flee beacuse in europe they can get more money. In fact they want to recreate their own societies in everything they can. There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam. Their reasons are mostly economic factors, sometimes beacuse there are wars in their countries.

Frequently because there are still wars in their countries, actually. Frequently wars started or caused by Russia, Europe, or the United States. (I lay Syria on the US because they stared that mess, in 1948)

Blackie wrote:Crime rate in Malmoe has increased significantly in the last 2 decades, and each crime gang is from arabic, african or balcanic nations, you can't deny it.

I do not have access to actual crime data for Malmoe, so, no, I can't deny it. But I can suspect that you'll find that the crime rate does not expand in direct proportion to the number of people of those ethnicities living in the area.

Blackie wrote:
Paris, Nice, Bruxelles were massacres. Also american citizens died in these attacks.

Paris and Nice I'll give but how does Americans being killed make them somehow more significant? I'd be more impressed if it was 'also billionaires died in these attacks.' but then I'd probably be cheering in the streets at that point.

Blackie wrote:
ISIS doesn't killl everyone in their territories, only those who don't follow their rules or minorities. In saudi arabia is the same, people are forced to live as those sultans want them to live. There are years of prison only for manifesting disagreement and the death penalty for crimes that are not even crimes in many countries. And some death penalties are very cruel like locking people in cages under the sun until they die. Not very different to ISIS executions.

The first bit about ISIS not killing everyone varies by commander and location. Two, I'd get banned again by showing you pictures of some of the things ISIS has done to human beings. We'll leave it at being slow roasted in a cage in the sun is a joy compared to some of them. They get inventive on occasion.

Blackie wrote:
Europe is not USA where kids shot each other even in schools and there's a huge crime rate, in USA there are only a few refugees or muslim people

HUH???????? Trump, is that you?

There are about 3 million Muslims living in the US atm. There's 2.7million in the UK (most recent numbers I could find). Interestingly, you have a 1 in100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in England and Wales, but a 1 in 250 in the US. (again, most recent numbers I could lay my hands on). The uS has allowed in Millions of refugees since 1980, and almost 100k just last year (ending at Jan 24th. ho ho ho).

BTW: I saw this and laughed my ass off.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The irony is that many of them are indeed fleeing islamic countries because of how horrible they are, but once they arrive here they then want to recreate the exact same system that they fled from. That and they hear stories of the benefits they think they'll be entitled too.

They are taking benefits our own work shy scroungers demand as right damnit!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-security-essen-idUKKBN16I07G

German police shut shopping mall over fears of attack
German police sealed off and closed a shopping mall in the heart of the western city of Essen on Saturday after the security services warned of a possible terrorist attack.

Germany is on high alert following deadly militant Islamist attacks in France and Belgium and after a failed asylum seeker from Tunisia drove a truck into a Berlin Christmas market in December, killing 12 people.

"Yesterday, we received very serious indications from security sources that a possible attack was planned here for today and would be carried out," a spokesman for Essen police told Reuters Television. "That is why we were forced to take these measures."

Earlier, a police spokesman told a German broadcaster they believed the Limbecker Platz shopping centre was under threat of a possible terrorist attack.

Armed police and vans surrounded the shopping centre, one of the biggest in Germany with more than 200 retail outlets, but roads nearby were open to traffic.

In the afternoon, police said they had searched an apartment in the nearby town of Oberhausen and the owner was being questioned. Police later said they had detained another man in an internet cafe in the same town for questioning.
The police gave no further details apart from saying the investigations in Oberhausen were linked to the Essen operation.

Essen, in the industrial Ruhr region, has nearly 600,000 inhabitants.
Rationalize it as much as you like, it keeps happening.

 loki old fart wrote:

Rationalize it as much as you like, it keeps happening.

So a story about a suspected plot that turned out to be NOTHING somehow supports anyone's claims here? If there HAD been an attack I could see your point.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

Rationalize it as much as you like, it keeps happening.

So a story about a suspected plot that turned out to be NOTHING somehow supports anyone's claims here? If there HAD been an attack I could see your point.

So are you saying the security forces were there for nothing? Or that they prevented it so it doesn't count.

typo's

 loki old fart wrote:

So are you saying the security forces were there for nothing?

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

You might notice it talks about questioning, but not arresting or pressing charges. This suggests that it turned out to be a false alarm.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
[They are taking benefits our own work shy scroungers demand as right damnit!

Well they are seeking the benefits they think they'e entitled too once they arrive here. Plenty of people from the camp in Calais said so when questioned about their reasons for trying to come into the UK.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

So are you saying the security forces were there for nothing?

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

You might notice it talks about questioning, but not arresting or pressing charges. This suggests that it turned out to be a false alarm.

Isn't it a bit early to be making bold claims like that? I think you might be umping the gun here.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

So are you saying the security forces were there for nothing?

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

You might notice it talks about questioning, but not arresting or pressing charges. This suggests that it turned out to be a false alarm.

Isn't it a bit early to be making bold claims like that? I think you might be umping the gun here.

What, as opposed to instantly using it to attack muslims?

Spetulhu wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
No one is fleeing because of islamic governments in which sharia is the law, they flee beacuse in europe they can get more money. There is no african or arab man/woman that fled his/her country because of Islam.

Funny thing then that so few of them flee to Saudi Arabia, which by all accounts is a very rich nation where you can get good money. Could it be they're actually leery of the strict Islam practiced there?

And not fleeing because of Islam? In fact quite a few, say, Iraqi claim they're fleeing Iraq due to sectarian violence (Shia vs Sunni) - granted not a country with Sharia law but some of the groups fighting there (like ISIS) would like to have such and even stricter. You have the same sort of crap in many African countries though not on quite the same insane scale yet. Many of the crazy groups also attack Christians and other religious or ethnic minorities who then try to flee somewhere safe.

But there's still hope. It was pretty impressive to see Egyptian muslims turn out to shield local Christians from terror threats during Christmas, for example.

SA doesn't let them in thats why.

Yeah, and apparently it's all because they're a threat to their culture. Yet they have the bare faced cheek to insist that we take them all.

Even with all the tent cities for pilgrims standing idly by they won't lift a finger to help. So much for that umma.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Interestingly, you have a 1 in100 chance of being involved in a violent crime in England and Wales, but a 1 in 250 in the US. (again, most recent numbers I could lay my hands on).

It should be mentioned that in some measures of violent crime the US does not include simple assault or non-forcible sexual assault, only aggravated assault and forcible rape, whereas the UK includes all kinds of assault and all kinds of rape and sexual assault.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It should be mentioned that in some measures of violent crime the US does not include simple assault or non-forcible sexual assault, only aggravated assault and forcible rape, whereas the UK includes all kinds of assault and all kinds of rape and sexual assault.

England also does not count crimes in it's totals until after the inquest concludes. The deaths of 96 in Hillsborugh in 1989 were not considered unlawful until last year, and were placed on last years murder rate. So both countries do questionable things to keep their public crime rates down? Say it ain't so!

Saudi Arabia by definition doesn't take in any refugees because they're not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. That doesn't mean they don't take in anyone, although no one seems sure how many they've actually taken in. The Saudis themselves are saying that they've taken 2.5 million in since 2011 which is... questionable at best. The BBC puts the number at 500,000 during the same period. Since Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a paragon of transparency we don't know, other than that the number is greater than zero.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It should be mentioned that in some measures of violent crime the US does not include simple assault or non-forcible sexual assault, only aggravated assault and forcible rape, whereas the UK includes all kinds of assault and all kinds of rape and sexual assault.

England also does not count crimes in it's totals until after the inquest concludes. The deaths of 96 in Hillsborugh in 1989 were not considered unlawful until last year, and were placed on last years murder rate. So both countries do questionable things to keep their public crime rates down? Say it ain't so!

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The UK having an inquest which reveals the truth about the events of the past is not anything to do with how violent crime is defined differently in the US and UK, with the UK typically being more broad.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The UK having an inquest which reveals the truth about the events of the past is not anything to do with how violent crime is defined differently in the US and UK, with the UK typically being more broad.

Normally I'd agree with you, but instead of postdating them to 1989, they included them in 2016's murder stats. Which makes the recent numbers a bit goofy. And the problem with long inquests into if a murder actually occurred is that it makes the numbers a bit off, as cases are pushed back by inquest proceedings that can take years to make a determination. (thinking about Shipman here)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Blackie wrote:
Paris, Nice, Bruxelles were massacres. Also american citizens died in these attacks.

Paris and Nice I'll give but how does Americans being killed make them somehow more significant? I'd be more impressed if it was 'also billionaires died in these attacks.' but then I'd probably be cheering in the streets at that point.

Of course, it's not more significant, but I thought that if american citizen were involved the news would have broadcasted in the USA with proper time and attention, so you shouldn'r remember those facts. ISIS also organized other massacres ouside their territory: tunisia, egypt, turkey, bangladesh and also USA, San Bernardino and Orlando.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The irony is that many of them are indeed fleeing islamic countries because of how horrible they are, but once they arrive here they then want to recreate the exact same system that they fled from. That and they hear stories of the benefits they think they'll be entitled too.

This. In Italy it's a bit different as 80-90% of the illegals do not receive the refugee status, because they fled by no wars. But returning in their countries costs a lot of money and the majority of them disappears. Some of them enter illegally to france and austria, many others become servants for mafia organizations, by working as slaves in farms, by selling counterfeit items at the seaside or working as drug dealers. Almost every drug dealer is african. Those that are caught (mostly the drug dealers) have high chances to become radicalized and follow terroristic groups like ISIS. Which is very appealing also to sons and daughters of regular immigrants as they teach their own values and not to hang out with western citizens. Unfortunately there are a lot of muslims that educate their sons/daughters like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Cause it's definitely not like the vast, vast, vast majority of people that ISIS have murdered have been.... muslim.

Yeah, that only shows how savages and barbaric they are: wherever they are muslims are at war with anybody, chirstians, jews, hindus, other muslims... If they reign or they're a minority doesn't matter, it' always the same story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Two, I'd get banned again by showing you pictures of some of the things ISIS has done to human beings. We'll leave it at being slow roasted in a cage in the sun is a joy compared to some of them. They get inventive on occasion.

ISIS are scum but human beings are evil. Tortures in guantanamo were nothing softer. Some atrocities committed by US soldiers during iraq and previous wars, prisoners tortured and rapings towards women and children that were disgusting too. I dont' want to defend them, I would kill them all in a second if a could, but stop portraying them as monsters, they're no different to any other dictatorship that we have witnessed in the last century. The most appalling thing about them is that they seduce people of many different countries, that's the real issue. Africans, asians and europeans join them, poor and rich people. The reason is the step from being a radical muslim or an islamic terrorist is really tiny, that's why I insist on not tolerating fanatisms. In europe the politc is completely wrong, basically to give them everything they want because otherwise they can revolt and commit a massacre. But this way we include no one in our societies, we let them live on their own communities and that's a mistake.

 Blackie wrote:


Yeah, that only shows how savages and barbaric they are: wherever they are muslims are at war with anybody, chirstians, jews, hindus, other muslims... If they reign or they're a minority doesn't matter, it' always the same story.

It's not like European Christian's weren't doing the same things just a few short years ago in the age of colonialism. How many millions of soldiers did terrible things with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckle in the last 100 or so years? One will notice that Muslims were minority fringe figures in the largest wars of the 20th century, while Christians slaughtered each other by the tens of millions. The genocide with the fastest rate of murder in modern history was the Rwandan genocide of just a couple decades ago, involving overwhelmingly Christian on Christian violence, the majority done face to face with bladed weapons and bare hands, stuff ISIS only does to small numbers of bound prisoners for show.

Likewise, look we certainly aren't seeing these issues with hundreds of millions of muslims outside the former Ottoman Empire, millions of muslims seem to be living rather peacefully in SE Asia for example. The areas we're seeing problems with have severe underlying socio-economic issues that would produce the same result regardless of religion. You could erase Islam from existence and the middle east would still be a shithole because these areas have been insanely mismanaged and misgoverned for lifetimes and that pressure is finally boiling over.

Religion ends up being the vehicle for people's existing pressures, urges, desires, rages, etc, but it's not exclusive to anyone, people of all beliefs have done terrible things and will continue to do them.

*People* are gakky, religion is just the dumb justification they reach for when explaining their gakky behavior. The flavor changes from time to time and place to place, but none are really unique in the violence and nastiness respect when the wrong conditions arise.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Religion ends up being the vehicle for people's existing pressures, urges, desires, rages, etc, but it's not exclusive to anyone, people of all beliefs have done terrible things and will continue to do them.

*People* are gakky, religion is just the dumb justification they reach for when explaining their gakky behavior. The flavor changes from time to time and place to place, but none are really unique in the violence and nastiness respect when the wrong conditions arise.

You know, if we could put that into a single neat sentence and sell it to people we could start our own "rule the world" cult. Cough, I mean show people the error of their ways. ;-)

But seriously, you are right. Religion is just one vehicle evil guys use to get control over people. Under the Swedish Empire our armies always had Chaplains telling them how fighting for the King Ordained by Heaven was the work of God and Jesus, and whatever you did to the enemy was their just punishment for defying the one true Lord. There's still places in Europe where they tell kids to be nice or the Swedes are going to come and take them away. How's that for being the people's home of democracy and socialism?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Yeah, that only shows how savages and barbaric they are: wherever they are muslims are at war with anybody, chirstians, jews, hindus, other muslims... If they reign or they're a minority doesn't matter, it' always the same story.

It's not like European Christian's weren't doing the same things just a few short years ago in the age of colonialism. How many millions of soldiers did terrible things with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckle in the last 100 or so years?

Exactly I don't want people 18-19th century oriented in our countries. Our societies have evolved, theirs didn't.

It's not a matter of religions as they are the same as 2000 years ago, societies and people instead are completely different and the relationship between people and religion is the real issue. Western countries have a very different idea of religion compared to muslim nations.

Their cultures are not suitable for any democracy, that's why they need to change and luckily a lot of pepole coming from those areas did change. But there's still a huge number of muslims that is no different to ancient christians that wanted to burn witches alive and that is not acceptable.

We're discussing to give homosexual couples the same rights as eterosexual ones, many states already have achieved this, or we're discussing euthanasia... muslims want to eat meat that comes from animals killed by throat slashing, which was illegal before their complains, only because a book says so, they forced swimming pools to divide women and men because they're so medieval that can't see a body of a woman without thinking of sessual assaulting her. The reason why they wear scarfs is disgusting too, they wear them not because they like them or because they feel cold otherwise but because no men should see women forms with the exception of their husbands. There some muslim that even deny shaking hands with women. Behaviours like these ones are the basis to radical islam and then terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Religion is just one vehicle evil guys use to get control over people.

I agree.

Can you stop just claiming stuff without giving sources? It's making this entire "debate" where you rant against Muslims completely impossible. For example, you seem to have a window into the mind of every Muslim woman, which is completely ludicrous. It would appear that you, in fact, are "not compatible with Western society", assuming that we want to build that society on rationalism and humanism.

 Blackie wrote:


Exactly I don't want people 18-19th century oriented in our countries. Our societies have evolved, theirs didn't.

It's not often I get to see a determinist whig in the flesh. Takes me right back....to the 1930's.

 Blackie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Yeah, that only shows how savages and barbaric they are: wherever they are muslims are at war with anybody, chirstians, jews, hindus, other muslims... If they reign or they're a minority doesn't matter, it' always the same story.

It's not like European Christian's weren't doing the same things just a few short years ago in the age of colonialism. How many millions of soldiers did terrible things with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckle in the last 100 or so years?

Exactly I don't want people 18-19th century oriented in our countries.

These aren't necessarily 1700's issues, these are things that occurred within the lifespans of people alive today or just barely outside of it. There are people who still today remember the terrible things that soldiers with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belts came and did.

Our societies have evolved, theirs didn't.

You're basing everything on extremely small timescales for this sort of thing, and are not acknowledging the recent history of these places. For many hundreds of years the so-called "muslim" world was ahead of christian europe in many ways, not everyone can stay on the same pace forever, and pretending like the current time is the "end state" of what is and will be is a mistake. Look at the modern middle east, formerly all bound within the Ottoman Empire, separated by foreign nations drawing lines on maps for their own gain with zero relation to the cultural, economic, social and infrastructure realities on the ground, ruled by foreigners for decades, then kept together only through force by dictators, and now it's starting to fall apart. Look at eastern europe a hundred years ago, we were dealing with the breakup drama of the Austro-Hungarian empire through the 1990's and that was on a far small scale with much more developed economies. Most of these places just have never been given a real chance to sort out their differences and places and goals, and it took Europe a hundred million dead and two world wars to get to a point where we've been merely *mostly* peaceful for the last 70 years. The cultures of the middle east and the greater muslim world are varied and multifaceted, to say they didn't evolve is inaccurate, however they're having to deal with economic and identity issues that Europe solved through blood decades ago.

It's not a matter of religions as they are the same as 2000 years ago, societies and people instead are completely different and the relationship between people and religion is the real issue. Western countries have a very different idea of religion compared to muslim nations.

Currently yes, if we're generalizing in the extreme, but in many ways that's also only developed over the course of a couple of human lifetimes, the blink of an eye in cultural terms, and expecting everyone everywhere to move at that same pace is quite unrealistic, particularly when most of these nations have never really been able to operate "on their own" so to speak.

Their cultures are not suitable for any democracy, that's why they need to change and luckily a lot of pepole coming from those areas did change.

The same can be said of many nations, it's not like Armenia, Belarus, China, Rwanda, Russia, Laos, etc are exactly beacons of democratic freedom.

But there's still a huge number of muslims that is no different to ancient christians that wanted to burn witches alive and that is not acceptable.

Most of this is just used as political theater by authorities (be the government or tribe or whatnot) in a relatively small handful of places, few actually believe that, and lets be real, this sort of thing isn't isolated to muslims. "burning witches" happens in rural hindu India, and caste violence in India is a very real thing, and don't get caught being an Albino in rural Kenya or Congo.

We're discussing to give homosexual couples the same rights as eterosexual ones, many states already have achieved this, or we're discussing euthanasia... muslims want to eat meat that comes from animals killed by throat slashing, which was illegal before their complains, only because a book says so, they forced swimming pools to divide women and men because they're so medieval that can't see a body of a woman without thinking of sessual assaulting her. The reason why they wear scarfs is disgusting too, they wear them not because they like them or because they feel cold otherwise but because no men should see women forms with the exception of their husbands. There some muslim that even deny shaking hands with women. Behaviours like these ones are the basis to radical islam and then terrorism.

And there are absolutely Christian and Jewish groups that believe and practice many the same things. One may argue that they are not as widespread, but they exist, and when you see opposition to all of these things in modern western culture, who do they come from? Generally christian groups of various sorts.

Blackie wrote:
Of course, it's not more significant, but I thought that if american citizen were involved the news would have broadcasted in the USA with proper time and attention, so you shouldn'r remember those facts.

I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big, or about how the 24 hour news cycle works in the US.

Blackie wrote:
Yeah, that only shows how savages and barbaric they are: wherever they are muslims are at war with anybody, chirstians, jews, hindus, other muslims... If they reign or they're a minority doesn't matter, it' always the same story.

Ignorance of History detected! Set BS filters to Maximum.

Blackie wrote:
ISIS are scum but human beings are evil. Tortures in guantanamo were nothing softer. Some atrocities committed by US soldiers during iraq and previous wars, prisoners tortured and rapings towards women and children that were disgusting too. I dont' want to defend them, I would kill them all in a second if a could, but stop portraying them as monsters, they're no different to any other dictatorship that we have witnessed in the last century. The most appalling thing about them is that they seduce people of many different countries, that's the real issue.

You... wow, I'm gonna play it safe and just add you to my blocked posters list because I do not want to violate Dakka's rules right now and tell you EXACTLY what I think of your position.

the most polite thing I can think to say is that you lack any grasp of the VAST difference in scale here. To use the best analogy I can come up with off the top of my head, it's like saying that the shooting of a single prisoner is just as bad as the entire actions of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe from 1939 on. One is wrong, and the other is hundreds of thousands of times as bad.

Blackie wrote:
Exactly I don't want people 18-19th century oriented in our countries. Our societies have evolved, theirs didn't.

That's actually a pretty hardcore 19th century mode of thought you have there yourself.

Blackie wrote:
Their cultures are not suitable for any democracy.

And Western nations have made damn sure to overthrow or make puppets of any that have arisen. You seem to fail to note that it was the Europeans (England, Russia, and France) along with the US, who have created this situation. It was decided after world war 1 that the US and European powers would nip in the bud the least sign of regional stability in order to prevent any strong power forming in the middle east, damning them to decades of strife.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

So are you saying the security forces were there for nothing?

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

You might notice it talks about questioning, but not arresting or pressing charges. This suggests that it turned out to be a false alarm.

Strange the Germans think it's isis linked.
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/demaiziere-193.html

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

I'm only replying about this: the terrorist attack in paris that claimed 130 lives was the biggest in terms of number of casualties since world war II in france and the second one in europe after the attack that took place in spain 2004. Is it not that big? We're not in the USA, war zones or third world, mass killings by shooting are (were) not that common here, so yes that was a very huge thing. In the USA I don't know if a similar massacre did ever took place, I only remember the 11 september 2001 which was bigger.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

Lets er, move off that ok. Death of one is too many and I am sure no one here is arguing any differently.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


I'm not sure if I should lecture you on how an attack that kills 100 people or less is not really that big

Christ, could you be any less callous?

He could be arguing that we should let people drown in the Aegean.