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.

Literally none of what you said makes sense in relation to the question he asked, unless you're a Mother Jones poster I guess.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Out of curiosity, what money has the US gained from our recent military efforts? The only personal gain I can think of is combat experience.

Okay, so, the largest industry in the US (and a lot of other western countries) is finance and insurance. There are literally trillions of dollars riding on things like oil, construction, defence contracts, stocks, shares, securities, government bonds, as well as the outcome of geopolitical events, which might influence these markets, and a thousand others.

Every time there is an election, or a disaster, or an attack, or a war... there are teams of analysts and traders at places like Goldman Sachs, tuned in, looking for a way to profit out of it. And they're not just idly spit-balling ideas. They're on the phone with politicians, lobbyists, media corporations, business leaders etc... making damn sure that things break in their favour, and they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars at it, because they'll make billions in return. Make no mistake, no matter who loses, Wall Street always wins: they control the game.

They will happily steer that ship wherever the most profits are, and it doesn't bother them at all to watch markets collapse, jobs lost, nation states fail, or war break out. In fact they love that kind of stuff, it's great for business.

Go and read about Goldman Sachs involvement in the Greek debt crisis, they practically engineered the whole thing. They both contributed to, and profited from the credit crunch, betting against the market, and their own clients (people lost their pension funds). Then maybe take a look at the people Trump is padding his cabinet with, take a look at who Bush, Clinton and every president in modern history took his advice from, to see how deep this incestuous and corrupt relationship goes.

The "America" you like to think you live in, might not have profited out of recent military action. Probably, nobody you know profited. But the people at the top pulling the strings, they all profited, I guarantee it.

So in short, no, the US did not profit form the Trillion plus spent on the wars. Our GDP sure as heck does not show a return on investment (and GDP takes into account private as well as gov't).

Thanks for the long winded answer confirming my gut feeling.

 Frazzled wrote:
Literally none of what you said makes sense in relation to the question he asked, unless you're a Mother Jones poster I guess.

Tneva82 said that western countries have been messing around in the middle east, bombing stuff for money and profit. He asked how America had profited.

I explained how a portion of America does profit -- a portion that represents America's largest industry, and essentially owns the American government -- I explained how they profit, and why they have a vested interest in manipulating global politics. I even gave a specific example, and pointed to further reading.

Then you say: "literally none of that makes sense". It's a shame that you feel that way, because if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.

No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.

if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.

Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.

 CptJake wrote:
Thanks for the long winded answer confirming my gut feeling.

Confirmation bias aside. The GDP does not reflect how specific parties may have profited. As I pointed out, Goldman Sachs profited in 2008 as the rest of the world was plummeted into economic crisis. The fact that people are able to profit from global conflict, and have a vested interest in creating and prolonging it, is why there are so many people who are angry at America (a super power that is essentially owned by capitalists).

Considering the US didn't invade anyone in 2008 your "evidence" seems to support the exact opposite of your claim.


Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media.
Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?

 jhe90 wrote:
process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

Finally, some common sense. Give priority to the minorities of the Middle East like the Yazidies and the Christians, because they're the ones suffering from persecutions the most.

In addition to this, mix in the Australian approach. Anyone who tries to cross the med will be escorted back to were they started from. Even if they land on the European coast they should be brought back anyway. Make that crossing a completely pointless endeavour and it will stop, as will the mass drownings.

And while we're at it, encourage those Saudi Arabian scumbags to do more to help, instead of complaining about the risk of their culture being eroded. Those tent cities for pilgrims they have would make good refugee camps.

 Frazzled wrote:
No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.

if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.

Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.

It's not BS though is it? I challenge you to point to one part of my post that isn't demonstrably true.

As for the Hitler comparison. That's exactly the kind of pitiful and baseless appeal to emotion I expect from you. I'll see your Hitler, and raise you Jesus, who also threw the money changers out of the temple, and the bible has plenty to say on usury.

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?

 Frazzled wrote:
Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media.
Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?

For the hard of understanding: the point I was making was that they profited from the crash, even though the economy was in ruin. Which was a counter point to CptJake's claim that the the GDP didn't go up, so no one profited.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No you tied a bunch of bs statements together without even positing a cogent theory. Thats fine on some university coffee house where they think thats a cool story bro, but in the real world its just bs.

if you aren't able to grasp the connection between global finance and world politics, then you aren't able to grasp politics. Which explains a lot of your posts.

Yes Hitler thought those global bankers (the Jews) were behind all of Germany's troubles too.

It's not BS though is it? I challenge you to point to one part of my post that isn't demonstrably true.

Can't prove a negative. Apple also did well. Therefor Apple is deeply involved in the Middle East. Apple has blood on its hands!!!!




As for the Hitler comparison. That's exactly the kind of pitiful and baseless appeal to emotion I expect from you. I'll see your Hitler, and raise you Jesus, who also threw the money changers out of the temple, and the bible has plenty to say on usury.

Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I
Jesus did not talk about an international financial conspiracy. Hitler did. Basic Fail II.

Whats next, a little blood libel? I mean if you're going to go for it, lets quit beating around the bush and go for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Also you pick 2008. You know what was going on in most of 2008? The biggest stock bubble in decades. Do you know who Goldman is? They're an investment banker. An investment banker making money at the high point of the financial cycle...someone alert the fething media.
Whats that phrase: coincidence is not causality?

For the hard of understanding: the point I was making was that they profited from the crash, even though the economy was in ruin. Which was a counter point to CptJake's claim that the the GDP didn't go up, so no one profited.

They profited from the upswing. They took a bath in the crash. Basic Fail III.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/press-releases/archived/2008/2008-12-16-q4-earnings.html

I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion dollar industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fething obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.

 Smacks wrote:
I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.

You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.

 Frazzled wrote:
You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that only jews can be bankers? That sounds like your own racist construction. It really has nothing to do with what I said. Just because I'm against people callously profiteering from things like war and environmental destruction, doesn't mean I'm against jews.

This just sounds like another weak argument from you. Calling me a racist (which I'm not at all) is really just attacking me personally, it's ad hominem. Pathetic.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?

With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.

Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.

Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.

We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.


Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.

Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.

Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.


...

Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.

Carrot and sticks.

Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.

Its a far from simple strategy.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.

You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.

Some people use international bankers to mean bankers who operate internationally, rather than the dog whistle term for some shadowy conglomerate of Jews who supposedly run the whole worlds economies.

If your first thought when someone says international bankers is some shadowy jewish conspiracy rather than a generic person in a suit then that's an issue with you.

 Frazzled wrote:
Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I

I was responding to your comment about banks, not specifically Goldman. So not a fail. And also Goldman Sachs are Goldman Sachs "investing and lending", so stick that in your fail pipe and smoke it.

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that only jews can be bankers? That sounds like your own racist construction. It really has nothing to do with what I said. Just because I'm against people callously profiteering from things like war and environmental destruction, doesn't mean I'm against jews.

This just sounds like another weak argument from you. Calling me a racist (which I'm not at all) is really just attacking me personally, it's ad hominem. Pathetic.

You made the statements, I didn't. There is a a 100 year tradition of antisemitism concerning international bankers etc. etc. Either you're anti-semetic or need to educate yourself on your own statements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I didn't say anything about Jews, you did, obvious straw man. And a trillion industry impacting global politics is hardly a conspiracy theory, it's fetching obvious that it can't not have a massive impact.

You said international bankers. We all know what that means. Then you said Goldman. Give me a ing break.

Some people use international bankers to mean bankers who operate internationally, rather than the dog whistle term for some shadowy conglomerate of Jews who supposedly run the whole worlds economies.

If your first thought when someone says international bankers is some shadowy jewish conspiracy rather than a generic person in a suit then that's an issue with you.

When you light that puppy up by specifically naming Goldman Sachs, you betcha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Usury is the unlawful charging of interest. Goldman is an investment banker. Basic fail. I

I was responding to your comment about banks, not specifically Goldman. So not a fail. And also Goldman Sachs are Goldman Sachs "investing and lending", so stick that in your fail pipe and smoke it.

Loans are not their primary business, its a loss leader for their other services.

STILL HAVEN"T SHOWN ANY LINK TO THE US MAKING A PROFIT OFF THE ME WARS SINCE 2001.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?

With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.

Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.

Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.

We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.


Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.

Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.

Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.


...

Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.

Carrot and sticks.

Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.

Its a far from simple strategy.

So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.

 Frazzled wrote:
You made the statements, I didn't.

Yes you did, you made a direct comparison between me an Hitler. Which is completely uncalled for.

When you light that puppy up by specifically naming Goldman Sachs, you betcha.

Goldman Sachs had a direct hand in Greek debt crisis, and have been heavily criticised for their actions therein, which were arguably fraudulent. Are you saying no one is allowed to criticise that kind of practice? That has nothing whatsoever to do with criticizing jews, unless you're an idiot.

Highly called for. You're using his language.

Also Greece is not the Middle East, nor is it related to your argument that the US has profited off the ME wars.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?

With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.

Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.

Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.

We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.


Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.

Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.

Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.


...

Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.

Carrot and sticks.

Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.

Its a far from simple strategy.

So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.

A iron curtain.. Its control...

Qmwr control the border. The ways in. No more thousands unchecked. No more berlin if we can help it.

And Syria. No. We back Assad.
He better than Islamic state. Better than FSA.

Not good. But wr pick a aside . Stop funding terrorism. Isolate. Defund. Destroy.
Or stand aside and let arussian backed Syrians reclaim there country.

End the civil wars breeding the crisis one way or another. Mo war, no refugees.

 jhe90 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


And not taking in refugees means they either die or suffer immensely, are we really advocating that?

Yes, "let them drown in the Aegean" actually popped up a while back.

process them them in camps in the middle east. Not the ones who can afford to pay thousands to cross the med.
Pick the ones who are deserving of said status from the camps after security checks.

The families, the disabled, the poor. Not who can pay 5000 to cross, fit young men.
Families, disables, injured, and the needy fire..

Single males later.... Priority to families with kids.

This is completely unrealistic. Process them in camps? Where do you think they are all coming from? They come from the refugee camps in Turkey, unwilling to wait for five years to be processed. Were are paying Turkey to basically hold them there, which the majority obviously don't want. You know who gets through then, just the young men who aren't burdened by families and can more easily slip past the border.
And refusing young men is the worst you can do. They can't go back because of the war and making them spend years or decades in refugee camps will only drive to make them resent the world for their situation, fertile breeding ground for the issue we are trying to stop. If we keep these people in camps for years and play hot potato with them were going to end up with this generation of Palestinian refugees. We were sure those could once go back, now they live in second and third generation refugee camps. Are we willing to let that happen to the Syrians as well?

With correct organisation and the logistics driven by a highly orgonisied unalateral system working through established and setting up west back camps with decent conditions.

Wr have massive logistics capability. We never bring it to bear on a task.

Simple. Fortify Europe. Properly. We Donald trump this.
We build frnces, walls and man the things and defend them.

We render Amy illegal crossing a fools errand. Make it very clear. Illegal crossing means no asylum.


Now we then process people quickly, effectively in good camps with decent conditions amd make it clear the only way is legal route.

Smugglers get life in jail. So do anyone sneaking, helping or abeting.

Law is law. But we also have a door. But a controlled door.


...

Finaly we sponsour and support destruction ot terrorists, and aim to help Syria and Iraq be made safe and offer jobs, homes and. Such.

Carrot and sticks.

Its a combination of force, offensive action, support, orgonized united logistics and then also long term rebuilding and planning long term region wise.

Its a far from simple strategy.

So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.

A iron curtain.. Its control...

Qmwr control the border. The ways in. No more thousands unchecked. No more berlin if we can help it.

And Syria. No. We back Assad.
He better than Islamic state. Better than FSA.

Not good. But wr pick a aside . Stop funding terrorism. Isolate. Defund. Destroy.
Or stand aside and let arussian backed Syrians reclaim there country.

End the civil wars breeding the crisis one way or another. Mo war, no refugees.

You're being unrealistic again. The Iron Curtain never stopped people from crossing and was too big to properly control the entire border. Unless we advocate violence we wont stop border crossings. The area is just to vast to properly cover. Again how do you plan to fund this? Have you found a way to turn rocks into gold? Cause here on the mainland money sure doesn't grow on trees.
And backing Assad means those people can't go back. Those young men you keep bringing up? They will have a wonderful time trying to explain to Assad's regime why they left instead of fought. You can't send these people back to Assad, its murder. Were risking the lives of millions of Syrians just so you can prevent four crazy people from doing something in Germany.

 Frazzled wrote:
Highly called for. You're using his language.

Your are being both ridiculous and libellous. Nothing I have said has anything whatsoever to do with Jews or Hitler, and (for the record) I'm completely and utterly opposed to anti-Semitism and Nazism. Your tenuous straw man is as obviously false as it is repugnant. I see no reasonable excuse for you to continue to pursue it, other than dishonesty and spitefulness.

Also Greece is not the Middle East, nor is it related to your argument that the US has profited off the ME wars.

Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics.

And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest.

Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics.
***Again nothing to do with the ME. I must have missed where the US was bogged down in a war in Greece.

And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
***Lockheed profited yes. please show me where Lockheed destroyed the towers.

 Frazzled wrote:
Greece is a sovereign nation that came very close to collapse, almost taking the whole EU down with it. It's an example of the profound impact debt (and the manipulation of debt) has on global politics.
***Again nothing to do with the ME. I must have missed where the US was bogged down in a war in Greece.

I have made my point quite clearly. Stop moving the goalposts around. It was never my intention to show that Greece is in the ME, you're just being ridiculous again. My intention was to show that corporations can have a big impact on global politics, and that they can profit from disasters, which they sometimes also have a hand in creating, because of conflicts of interest among politicians and regulators. I offered Greece and the Credit Crunch as examples of that, because they are. So: goal attained.

 Frazzled wrote:
And American companies did profit from the war in Iraq, the Carlyle Group is an obvious example, which has ties to G. W. Bush (the then president), and many other politicians, which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
***Lockheed profited yes. please show me where Lockheed destroyed the towers.

I do not have to show you where lockheed destroyed the towers (another example of you moving the goalposts). My goal was to provide an example (one among many) of an American company with political clout that has profited from war. I have provided an example of an American company, which invests in defence, and which also has ties to politicians, who have, in no uncertain terms, lead us to war. That is 'at best' a disturbing conflict of interest. Again: goal attained.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

On the contrary, I think you missed my overall point. Statistics do matter when discussing the refugee influx. The highest profile attacks committed have been done so by French and Belgian nationals who certainly did not need to infiltrate refugee groups to get back. Second of all, the Berlin attack however tragic was on a much smaller scale than those in France.

You point is that refuges are statistically nota threat and also are not seen to be responsible for actioned attacks and very few terrorist infiltrators have been detected amongsrt the large influx of Syrian refugees. So in your opinion it is unwelcoming and unhelpful to focus on them, If that was your point, then I understood it.

My point was that you can't just handwave other countries as complacent, but then blast Germany cause it had to be all the refugees clogging up the system. In Germany it was complacency too in part as I will explain at the end.

OK. Merkel was complacent, and doctrinaire in exposing Germany to massive immigration. The German security services were not complacent they were looking at the problem most studiously from what we can see. Every indication shows that the German state security took the Islamic threat and Islamic immigration very seriously.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

And in the 70's and 80's we had left wing socialist violence in Europe, certainly a side effect of large non-integrated socialist cultures in Europe The leading cause for homegrown radicalization is the inability and difficulty that second or third generation immigrants have in functioning in society, there are still issues of racism towards employment and less viable chances overall in life. These people radicalize cause they see it as there only way out and are in one way or another desperate, not because they are not integrated.

Patently untrue. The terrorists we are finding have histories of having no intention to integrate. Germany is not a nation of lost opportunity, at least since the early 60's. Second or third generation immigrants in Germany are part of a society that had no problems providing high employment and had jobs for immigrant, primarily Turkish workers. As with any such immigration there were clashes with far right, far left and fundamentalist individuals, but by and large Germany has have a Moslem workforce for a considerable time, and it has not found itself to be an unwanted and unemployable minority driven by desperation. The facts imply don't bear that out.
I cant say I remember too much of my life in Germany in the 70's and in the late 80's early 90's but finding work as an immigrant (or equivalent) was very easy. Its still easy enough today. In fact unemployment is at a 35 year low right now, even with an extra million inhabitants and with many of those still in processing camps.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Jihadism is just another side effect of a large political stream of thought such as socialism or nationalism. We have to combat it, but the way isn't to treat all Muslims as fifth columnists.

Here you have a clash of wills. Its the same strategy. The ihadists will want to hide in the immigrant population to turn the populace against them and to make the state have no choice but to heavily monitor them. As the immigrants are progressively alienated more will be open for radicalisation.
The state on the other hand knows the best way to combat that strategy is to integrate. The best way to integrate is to show some trust and faith and opportunity to the immigrants. Germany was willing to do this, and greeting the first wave with clapping. The unfortuneate fact is that an unknown proportion are already radicalised, and many more are sympathetic to jihadism.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

IDK why you think I'm wrong as the evidence so far is stacked against you.

You are wrong because you are looking at this in a skewed and two dimensional way. In effect you have bought the soothing words of propaganda indicating there is nothing wrong. Such as the only four confirmed previously actioned terrorists in the immigrant population detected. For a start thats detected, and its only one category. Also an ex-Jihadi is probably less of a threat than those who have yet to commit an attack and want to do their bit.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

1. Four is too many. Four is also smaller than the amount of murderers nationals bring forth that is too many. Again you can provide me the numbers if it is too high amongst that section of the population right? Demonstrate that the refugees are out of proportion. Going of homicide statistics proves you wrong though. And really we shouldn't compare the Irish from the troubles to a war zone with daily airstrikes, poison gas attacks and years of siege, one is more likely to bring out a higher number of psychological issues than the other.

Ok. So lets look shall we. According to this site Germany does very well according to 2010 data 8 murders per million population.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people#country

This is not unexpected. Sounds like those refugees are twice as unmurderous as regular Germans yes?
Sorry wrong.

First the vast majority of murders are regular crimes. For every person being targeted by a terrorist even in a war zone, several more will die because of looting, collateral, etc.
In a civilised nation murders happen because burglars get disturbed at home, muggers panic after the victim takes too long to get his wallet out, because they shoot a cop, or want to collect insurance money etc etc.
- Approximately eight or so of those Syrian refugees will be of that mindset also year by year, assuming all people in Germany have a broadly similar outlook towards crime. The terrorists are EXTRA bonus for Germany!
- The murder rate in Syria prior to the civil war is 21 per million, assuming the immigrants behave like Syrians and not Germans, and this is fairly indicative of how murder statistics play out, we can exprct a three fold increase to the national average . To be fair to the Syrians, twenty one per million is still not too bad, about half as murderous as Americans at forty two murders per million..
- The state security found four ex-terrorists, how many didn't they find? How deep is the iceberg, whst havent we found yet and how many are fresh terrorists in waiting.
- Terrorists are a special problem. Most murder is avoidable unless the murderer intended to kill you. Hand over the wallet, look yourself in the bathroom and phone the police, dont confront an armed intruder. Most murders are crimes of excess. This doesnt work with terrorism. You are shopping when.... you are on a train when.... you go to a synagogue when.... Its different.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

2. In two years its been four people! Meanwhile almost 1600 Germans have murdered someone else. The better have a whole army biding their time to make up for their efforts so far. And we have a good idea how many are committed terrorists, just look at the nationals list, Germany had several hundred nationals going abroad to fight who are now returning. Your terrorism 101 is also a tad outdated.

Your post is a bit disjointed and unclear here. Are you talking about German passport holders who go off to fight jihad? If so its a problem for the UK also. But its a problem we cant prevent entering the psyche because the people who have these intentions already unfortunately have EU passports.
The trick is not to add more.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The most successful terrorist attacks have all been committed by trained terrorists. So far you are just speculating about numbers that isn't in any way supported by the evidence. When will we see this massive increase in attacks? If it is as easy as stealing a truck, why isn't this a weekly occurrence?

We sadly must speculate about numbers because the real data gets classified in a hurry. If I did know the real data I couldn't share it on Dakka, and neither could you.
We have to go by patterns of what is in the public domain. Four 'ex-terrorists' found in the Syrian refugees, check, note however exactly how that number is broken down and what it doesn't include. Its a safe number to release to the press and may well be unindicative. Veteran jihadis will be easier to find, they might have recorded images of them with ISIL flags and guns, or be known of from fellow fighters. Also few will dare try to enter Europe if they are known actioned fighters, they will be easy to find and might get charged with terror offences on entry. Finally ISIL neds its veteran fighters in the war and cant spare triggermen to sit in German refugee camps. By and large those four are likely deserters. ISIL will send a different category of people as sleepers.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

3. Of course it means they were right to investigate, it's what they exist for. But based of those statistics either they are doing a good job or there just aren't that many. Of course this could change later with radicalization, but that is an argument to help them to the best of our abilities, to make sure they don't have a need to fall back into bad habits.

You half understand. Yes most are actioned yet, but if they are already sympathisers and mostl already radicalised you are onto a loser. Unless you have heacvily encouraged integration. Sadly Europe doesn't do this because the political classes are in denial. Instead radicalised immigrants go into the mainstream European population where they learn very quickly that Europe is rife for jihad. We are so piss weak in their mind (and not without merit of argument) that because we make excuses due to liberal progressive attitudes, and because our society is constantly trying to overlook abuses, or blame it on far right lies. Many of the immigrants see no reason to integrate, no reason not to extend bad habits. Rape and rape away, the weak western politicians will cover up the horrible truth.
There is no incentive to integrate, and they don't want t join what they see as a dying infidel society, not when they are as their clerics say already are on the winning side.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Security agencies certainly don't have an endless budget. Yet even in countries with significantly larger and well developed agencies such as the U.S. you still have attacks from time to time, it is impossible to stop each and every one of them.

Agreed, it is a difficult process. But I'm just trying to keep the discussion on the process in reality, which the media doesn't always do.

It is hard to use the media. Far right is far right, progressive left is just as bad, in fact worst as it covers up crimes, at least the far right have a valid excuse for their anger, the problem instead is what they do with it.
From the UK perspective the press dont want to know the gory details.
The case of brutal horrible and violent discrimination in Birmingham that I knew of in 2008 was so brutal and violent and discriminatory that the press didnt want to know, with exception of the Daily Mail. My contacts decided not to run with the story because it would then be 'yet another' Daily Fail lie and it would do that family no good. The actual truth is the Daily Mail and Daily Express are posting REAL stories of brutal offences by Islamic minorities that nobody else will print, and are thus seen as uncorroborated lies.
Thankfully in 2010 the new Prime Minister acted very quickly on the Islamified Trojan Horse plot in schools, the papers covered stories from the times. Though some covered more than others. However it was refered to as a Trojan Horse plot, as in covert and only late detected, that was a nice bit of spin. It wasnt in any way undetectable, the Islamic teaching staff were very overt in their discrimination indoctrination and brutality, its just that the Blair and Brown administrations didnt want to know about it.
You have to look between the lines on these issues use the independent and alternative media, look at intelligence websites and see independent reports. Thankfully due to the mobile phone it is getting difficult for European government to keep a full lid on the Islamic rape culture as victims have social media, an some nasty cases are happy slapped anyway by the perpetrators.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If both those countries drop the ball once in a while, why does it have to be refugees for Germany? Why can't Germany just drop the ball, as it is starting to look like. Yet even Isreal, with its massive investment had great trouble with the second Intifada or just last year with loners stabbing or running over people. There is a limit to what you can prevent. Maybe the four in Germany just prevent that limit to an extent.

Even Mossad/Shin Bet and MI5 drop the ball, and those are the best internal security agencies on the planet since the end of the DDR. Try as they might nobody stops them all. Israel still gets attacked frm the inside every now and then, and atrocities like 7/7 occur.
Error and complacency are not the same, humans make errors, bad discipline makes complacency.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The AfD blamed this attack on Merkel for letting the refugees in. If this isn't a clear cut case for AfD thinks refugees=terrorists=dead Germans=blame Merkel for refugees I don't know what is. Blaming just the Muslims isn't any better, it just makes you more racist, the ones most open to radicalization are some of the most secularized Muslims.

Right the AfD is not saying this about refugees. they are saying this about Islamic refugees. Please notice the difference. The Uk has the same difference, there are anti Islaic movement and anti-refugee movements. The two overlap but are not the same:
Anti-refugee arguments = 'they are taking our jobs', 'our country is full', 'social welfare and state medical care are overstretched'.
anti-Islamic refugee arguments = 'we are importing jihad'

AfD might well have anti-immigration policies on top of anti-Islamic policies but the two are in fact separate issues.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The AfD, Front National and Wilders all lie based on false statistics. These people don't have the answers, they are just the alt-right or breitbart of political parties. We tried having Wilders involved in government and he knew gak all, these are not coherent parties, they are foreigners bad! Ethnic (christian) nationals gud!
I think Peregrine is helping out this part nicely.

Peregrine is always happy to help out if he can bash Christians. Nearly all the political power amongst Eurpean parties is secular, there are few exceptions and most who call themselves Christian are making an ethnic statement not a statement of faith. Christian Democrats is just another very European way of saying 'liberal' and is a secular movement overall. Many centre politic non-chtristians, atheists or agnostics will have common ground with them to the point of representing them in various parliaments.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again with the empty rhetoric. Give me something to work on, evidence the Iceberg is covered in refugee infiltrators. Non of the facts are on your side.

Oh come on now.
Handwave denials. How lazy, how common. How to answer this:

A. In case you are terribly stupid.
No, sorry I don't have access to classified information, or don't want to go to prison by sharing it on Dakka. I will leave you to speculate which is true.

B. In all other instances (which I presume means you).
You don't have/or cant share the facts either for the above reason. Stop placing an uneven burden. You have equal access to what we all have. Press reports, eye witness reports, and inquiring and and analytical brain.
I cant disclose operational details of counter-terrorist statistics, I don't possess, neither do you possess this data. The data we get released by government intelligence sourcing are heavily editted and massaged for propaganda value.
The main tool we have for determining effect is the fact that what we see today hold true with patterns of terrorist and intelligence operations in history, and we do have information on the methods. For example he methodology for Islamic revolution is similar to the methodology for socialist revolution. What worked in Cuba will to some extent work in Europe, though the timescales will be longer as socialism is for all, sharia society is for the Ummah, and Islamification spreads about the same speed of the demographc of the ethnic Moslem population and most Islamists beleive that conversion while it will help is only a minor factor.
We also have historical evidence as to how jihad itsefl operated in the modern age. Iran is a good well documented example, Taliban in Afhanistan etc. Its harder to get a real look into western security agency methodologies but those are also in the public domain if you look. Both from historical counterintelligence methods, CIA in Central America for example, or better yet from terrorist vs western security conflicts that have moved into a post conflict period of openness and healing. The best two examples of this are Northern Ireland and South Africa. These last two conflicts were operated by competent and well funded security agencies and while much remains classified, much is also in the public domain, most notably methodologies.

So all in all. I don't have meaningful data, neither do you. We both have access to information about how terrorists and security agencies work and can see that the patterns of what works from both ends are being replicated by the parties concerned. Remember that as ISIL is linked to a long history of terrorist activities in the middle east the commanders of ISIL will be largely following the methodologies of previous terror agencies. What works/ed for Hamas, Taliban or for that matter Irgun, works for ISIL.

So cut the bullgak of saying unless one has a load of classified counter-terrorist data to spill on Dakka one has no argument.


Also you dont understand the iceberg reference.


The analogy is not an iceberg covered in Islamic infiltrators. The Islamic infiltrators are the iceberg. Take a look at the above picture. How much 'Islamic fundamentalism' do you normally see if we represent Islamic fundamentalism as ice. Jihadist infiltrators don't normally announce themselves, you have find them. Some are better hidden than others.

German state security srutinised the refugees and found that their concerns hold true, jihadists have infiltrated the refugees. This is likely why most are still holed up in detention centres and are not allowed to roam around Germany. They are in effect imprisoned/detained indeinitely.
We found 'only' four was NOT the good news you think it is.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Again you have nothing to back up your claims. Refugee crime rate is not even relatively higher than that of the native population.

I can evidently back up my claims a hell of a lot better than you can.

Do you have any refugees crime rate data to share? So far you havent tried.
I will match it with this:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8663/germany-migrants-rape

Please also bear in mind it is in the partisan interest of the German government just as it was with New Labour regime in the UK and currently in Sweden to heavily downplay the threat posed.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

How are statistics skewed, we have it on record that there is no increase in reports, you're just grasping at straws saying but they could be, but then so could those of the native pop.

How do you claim I am clutching at straws. I didnt link to the Islamic rape crisis because I didnt need to. No more than I need to post the wiki page on Germany to show i am not talking about a made up fictitious country. The evidence is all around you.
Have some more:

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/europes-muslim-rape-epidemic-cologne-is-every-day/
http://nypost.com/2016/01/10/europe-is-enabling-a-rape-culture/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/697583/Rotherham-abuse-scandal-child-grooming-gangs-industrial-scale-victims-CSE

There IS a genuine PROBLEM.

I will leave that with that.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

We should let 1.1 mil people rot because of that chance?? We have had refugees from the Middle-East and Jihadism since the 70's yet it has never been an enormous problem, what makes people believe its going to be one now?

There is one now because of the head in sand denial that is enabling Islamic immigrants to impose their standards where women have grossly inferior status and rights on our society. Those immigranbts who tried that in the 70's were quickly rounded on. We didnt tolerate rape culture because our politics was not infected with progressive liberalism or political correctness. Immigrants from violent third world countries were told that Europe was different. For the most part it worked.
We also didn't import millions in the space of a few weeks and above all Islamic fundamentalists, while definitely there did not see our societies as week and ripe for takeover as the current generation of radical clerics see the west due to the apologism demonstrated by those in European society who refuse to see the threat.

In effect Islamists see Europe as ripe for the taking because of apologists like yourself. You might hold liberal values, and some of them are laudable at face value. These people will exploit that, but once they have a majority, which is the state claim of many clerics they will impose their will and your rights and customs will NOT be respected.
Bending over backwards 'tolerence' only leads to self destruction. You are feeding the wolf and letting it grow.

Now it is arguable as to whether Islamic can grow to become a demographic challenge or not. But it is certainly the goal of radical Islam to try.
https://unitedwithisrael.org/islam-will-conquer-europe-through-refugees-muslim-cleric-declares/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240295/Imam-tells-Muslim-migrants-breed-children-Europeans-conquer-countries-vows-trample-underfoot-Allah-willing.html

The two sources are double sourcing of one cleric. This is far from an isolated opinion though.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

It does sectarian for one reason, it's just to outlet for all the problems they encounter, their justification, most of these young men weren't strict Muslims (drinking, sex, eating pork) to begin with but Radical Islam is their outlet for frustration just like communism used to be. In the Netherlands in the 70's and 80's we had Indonesians from our former colony commting terror attacks to protest there treatment, they were in majority christian. It is almost like colonizing someone, then having a massive transplantation of an entirely different cultural and ethnic group has some effect if not managed properly.

The problem now exists on a different scale, hence the influx of rapes and the political paralysis in dealing with the issue.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

All European nations are guilty of doing less than they should have done to integrate these people, and of course some of the blame should rest on those that are unwilling as well.

Blame the victims.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Yet the amount that goes on and commits these kind of attacks is tiny and not in any way representative of these communities.

That is so wrong. What was very alarming other than the attacks themselves, was that on the day of 7/7 Moselm community leaders on TV refused to condemn the attacks, and the odd one or two who did made wishy washy statements about being against all violence. Also the sympathiser to terrorist ratio is normally very high, got a terrorist, you have x thousand sympathisers also. I dont have the figure for the actual ratio.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

We have blown this issue out of proportion because it seems very scary to us that we can just be killed by a random angry person. Yet the chance of dying in a car accident is much higher but it doesn't make people less hesitant to drive a car.

The car doesnt target you.

Neither do loo seats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths

Terrorists are out to get us, and they WILL kill us if they can. And I don't live in fear of that. But I do live in a reality of saying 'no jihadists welcome here'. And if it means it takes a while for the Syrian refugees to sit in a detention camp until Germany thinks they have deported all the undesirables then so be it. The German government has decided by their own sovereign will to do exactly that.
In a nutshell the German government doesn't trust all those Syrian refugees to be properly vetted and processed yet. Merkel for all her talk of opening Germany has decided possibly under heavy advisement from the German security services not to release all the Syrians into the national community, at least not yet.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Sure, but I was just mentioning that they did not seem to have a good video of the attacker this time as they arrested the Pakistani first and only almost two days later figured out that it might have been someone else. That's the point I was referring to in this case, apologies if that was unclear.

Your comment was valid either way. Police were not negligent by arresting the wrong man, they acted quickly on fallible eye witness testimony and arrested the wrong man. The police also took caution but didnt automatically presume his guilt allowed the suspect to defend his own reputation and let him go once they were sure he was no longer a suspect. By which time forensic evidence was now available and the search criteria changed.
Arrest immediately based on eye witness info, then switch once scientific info is processed looks to me that the Germans are trying to do what they can when they are able to do it, and are not sitting around.
They came up with a prime suspects identity fairly quickly all told, about as quickly as they could have done. Forensics takes time.
The post-attack reaction appears competent and professional on every level.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In this case he left his ID in the truck (apparently). Further information we have gotten is that he looked and inquired into ways to make explosives and sought out IS online.

Very possible. If he left his ID it was a lucky break, but the police waited until they had forensic evidence to tie him to the vehicle.
ID can be planted as a decoy, if it buys critical hours for the suspect to escape so much the better.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

That combined with the firearm sure makes it seem like the intelligence agencies dropped the ball. To make it even worse, he was already supposed to have been deported back to Tunisia but they were unable to.

I thought you were going to use this as your claim for German complacency at the beginning of your post.

First as stated earlier this isnt complacency, after all the German security services did want to deport him. He wasn't overlooked.
Second you aren't being fair. There are a large number of people security services want out of a European country but cannot get rid of as easily as they would have liked.
Take this charming gentleman:



Early in the Blair years he was clearly a threat an in the press but the government of the time wanted to downplay Islam, which was odd allowing for how vitriolic they could be with other forms of dissent.
When the government did want to act and extradition warrants started to be filed from partner agencies there began a long legal battle to deport Hamza. Hamza was eventually deported after several appeals in 2012, eight years after extradition request was signed. The European Courts also got involved.
It is interesting that the timeline of Hamzas extradition covered a similar period of hacker Gary McKinnon. McKinnon's extradition appeals were exhausted fairly rapidly and the European courts were not sympathetic despite large holes in the extradition claim against him and human rights issues. McKinnon only managed to stay in the UK because his extradition became toxic because of massive popular support and press attention. Hamza had a large press attention and the UK government could not get rid of him fast enough, and the British people were eager to comply with US extradition requests. Yet appeal after appeal and European interference protected him for a long time, human rights issues were raised even though there was no indication the US were a threat to his human rights unlike McKinnon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

Hamza is now in Florence ADX, Colerado supermax, and there he is likely to stay. McKinnon is safe so long as he doesn't enter the USA anytime over the next seventy odd years. I think he can manage.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So here we have a man who was clearly looking at a way to attack Germans and acting on this in front of the police, that would assuredly be deported back to Tunisia, perhaps making him even more desperate or rushed to commit this attack, yet he was still walking around as a free man. If that isn't a whole heap of ineptitude and complacency I don't know what is!

As stated above deportation is not a given. Heavily extended and lucrative legal processes get in the way. Terror suspects are cash ins for state funded lawyers, who can claim extra fees from the public purse because they are dealing with security issues. Its a popular junket. Its how people like Cherie lair made their millions. Deportation for everyone else is more open and shut.
Press tend not to report that bit, but as with Abu Hamza sometimes the full, ugly, fee ridden and lucrative process is revealed.

Yes it is very likely that the German security services wanted to remove Anis Amri, but cannot due to technicalities. He was monitored not arrested in a prior sweep and we will never lnow exactly why. whether he was considered too low down the perceived threat order to arrest, or because doing so would expose operations, or monitoring him was expected to lead security to yet unknown figures. It is hard to condemn German intelligence for their hard choices.

And if they hadn't the manpower to continue monitoring him due to having to vet 1.1 million Syrians I have sympathies.

Merkel is blaming the police, wheras she should be blaming the open door policy. Amri's deportation failed due to lack of paperwork from Tunisia, a neat lawyers trick.

Thank you for your post Orlanth. For once we find ourselves largely in agreement.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:



So we go into Syria and beat Assad and the Russians? Its not very likely the Sunnis are that willing to go back to a Syria that is ruled by Assad. Terrorism wasn't the reason they fled, it was the government opening up on protesters with attack helicopters.
You are basically advocating building a giant Iron Curtain to keep out refugees who will almost assuredly be granted political asylum. The plan is absurd, no one wants to live in a tent jobless for five years, no matter how clean that tent is. They don't want to go back else they wouldn't come here in the first place. And who is going to pay for all this stuff. This will cost billions or trillions of Euros for something with negligible effect, because as already said under European laws these people will be granted the right to stay. Kinda like how we don't tend to send people back to North Korea, Cuba or other places with murderous regimes. With the money you would spend on this we could easily settle them in Europe and integrate them to the best of our abilities. What you're proposing is just going to slow down their entry into Europe and it won't make them any friendlier. Again, you're basically advocating the unrealistic or death.

What jhe90 wrote isn't absurd.

A lot of your posts are.

The case made by our Mr Müller ( Gerd Müller / CSU / BMZ ) how we could help many times more people closer to where they come from instead of having them in the middle of Europe is convincing.
He said it multiple times and I think people like you try their best to ignore the possibilities. I'd rather see € invested long term and with less participants.

"Advocating death" ... you know how silly replies like this are?
The choice where you are isn't always yours. The Laws dealing with this are also not set in stone for eternity. The Right to stay can be granted or denied.
But never should it be acceptable to let some "undesirables" go somewhere else and then refuse to take them back. Seems this happens....

To crash a truck into people is a crime.
If someone had his time in jail already, maybe the group "refugee" or "immigrant" isn't the correct tag to put on him?

So following your logic, we should not deny entry to anyone, because the person who may be a risk to the life of humans already here cannot be a problem if part of the group "refugee"...
maybe one Day you realize, the Germans don't argue for "zero refugees" but for keeping the state in control who is running around here.
No one said "let them die out of sight".
But there is no reason to hand out "get free out of jail cards" just to make a few people living in an illusionary world happy.