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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.

Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?

Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?


Because hey in 30 days, it does.

Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?

Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.

Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?

Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?


Because hey in 30 days, it does.

Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?

Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?

So you're saying that it was acceptable for the IRA to bomb barracks as the people they were blowing up were, in their own worldview and with no oversight, their enemy?

 CptJake wrote:

Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him.

That's entirely dependent on the local Rules of Engagement.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What if it is a child holding the gun?

The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.

Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.

Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.

When was the declaration of war?
The 4th Amendment would like to slap you in the ass and tell you its raining.

Stupid comment. The closest thing we've had to a declaration of war since WW2 is congress authorizing military force, which they absolutely did in these cases.

Or are you gonna now claim every military action we've been involved in since WW2 is a war crime? If that is your argument, we'll agree to disagree.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him.

That's entirely dependent on the local Rules of Engagement.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What if it is a child holding the gun?

The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.

And what UK armed forces are currently deployed in Syria?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him.

That's entirely dependent on the local Rules of Engagement.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What if it is a child holding the gun?

The age of the individual doesn't matter on the ground, child soldiers can and do kill just as easily as an adult in fact they are reputed to be especially brutal. The morality is obviously more complex but rules of engagement are effectively someone else doing your moralising for you when there isn't the luxury of time.

And what UK armed forces are currently deployed in Syria?

You have had planes conduct bombing runs in Syria, and some pretty reliable sources put UK SOF on the ground as well...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

And what UK armed forces are currently deployed in Syria?

.......

Its universal (as far as I am aware at least) , someone armed and with hostile intent could be 9 or 90 but they will still be engaged.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.

Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?

Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?


Because hey in 30 days, it does.

Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?

Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?

can you restate as I am unsure what you are asking.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.

Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?

Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?


Because hey in 30 days, it does.

Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?

Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?

can you restate as I am unsure what you are asking.

saying that Trump, no Trump does not change someone with a gun on Syria firing on you or allies is a enemy... the combatent status is consitant

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Interestingly enough, the rules of evidence don't really come into play on the battlefield.

Sensor IDs a guy with weapon you can cap him. A convoy carrying supplies to bad guys? You can blow it to hell.

Its interesting how I don't thats in any way legal against US citizens.

When was the declaration of war?
The 4th Amendment would like to slap you in the ass and tell you its raining.

Stupid comment. The closest thing we've had to a declaration of war since WW2 is congress authorizing military force, which they absolutely did in these cases.
Please cite where Congress authorized a declaration of war. Thats the only thing permitted in the Constitution.
Please show me where the you received a judge's warrant for execution.
You're literally arguing the US government can murder US citizens for no needed legal justification.
Thats not a situation we've had before.

Or are you gonna now claim every military action we've been involved in since WW2 is a war crime?

Nope. The President didn't order hits on US citizens previously either. (ok maybe Nixon... )

Would it have been legal for the military to specifically shoot Jane Fonda?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
If there a enemy holding a gun or supporting a enemy. Where they come from means nothing. They are a enemy. You kill them.
.

Mmm do they not have warrants and due process in your country?

Are you comfortable that your country can kill you based on, well nothing, if it wants?
How would you feel if that power rested with D Trump?


Because hey in 30 days, it does.

Does Trump change that... Does trump change a pick up with a heavy machingun I a hostile unit?

Does trump change a enemy unit in a comabt position is not one?

can you restate as I am unsure what you are asking.

saying that Trump, no Trump does not change someone with a gun on Syria firing on you or allies is a enemy... the combatent status is consitant

Thats self defense and not what we're talking about.
What if the president decides to drone someone in Pakistan (real life) how about Pickadilly Circus?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
We used to hang traitors who assisted other forces against our own country. Now people wring their hands about even firing upon such people even in combat or running supplies to terrorists.

We also used to force people to undergo hormone therapy for being gay, what's your point? That we should drop our pursuit of the right to justice and law just because someone is doing something detrimental to our country? Murder is detrimental to our country yet we still require the state to prove that someone is guilty, in an impartial courtroom, before they enact punishment.

If you capture them then they should go on trial, I'm not suggesting we treat them inhumanely. But this idea we can drop bombs on some terrorists but not on others because one of them might be a citizen of our country is a bit ridiculous. Once you take to the field as an enemy combatant you should be treated as one of them for the purposes of engagement.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
BBC claims there are 850 known British jihadis in Syria about half have returned.

Didn't you just talk about how the returning people are the ones who are sick of fighting and just want to get back to facebook and a safe place to live? You can't really argue that and simultaneously claim that those 400 people are all serious terrorist threats.

Dear Peregrine, surprise me by thinking through your reply this time.
Not all of the four hundred odd returnees will be sick of jihad, and for there to be even over eight hundred in Syria means there are more in the UK who don't want to make the trip.
However you look at it there are plenty of Islamic fundamentalists in the UK right now that are prepared to kill infidel.

Now there are plenty of lorries to steal in the UK. and plenty of gatherings of people who are not behind protected barriers. If it was as easy as get in lorry drive through infidel and martyr oneself for 72 virgins, it would be happening. A lot.

So, I put the point back to you that you keep evading. there is SOMETHING stopping that, some factor not in the public eye. What could it be? Fear of monitoring, cowardice, lack of commitment, what? And it has to account for a population of several hundreds who are willing to travel illegally to Syria at their own expense knowing full well from the UK press coverage that SAS snipers are hunting them and Russians are happy to cluster bomb them, and they DON'T want to fall into the hands of Assad's lads alive. It takes a lot more effort to go on jihad to Syria, let alone cost, than it would to aquire a lorry and splat some shoppers.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that somehow just taking a lorry and doing an attack is more problematic/difficult than it sounds.

 jhe90 wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Honestly... Some people there is no hope. There is no rehab. What where we ever gonna do with jibadi john alive?
There enemy combatants. They just happen to be American, Brittish.. There in a war zone. They are legal targets.

We end them same as any scumbag terrorists.
Our enemies would end us ... We have to end them First.

There is no due process, either. You just believe your government, with all its long history of proven lying, cheating and murdering, when it declares them enemies and kills them.

Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less.
The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...

Funny you said that. Just read news of random american woman who went there for holiday. Gourgeous pictures. Would be nice place to visit if lt was safer.

 jhe90 wrote:
Uk gov has a potential more pragmatic approach.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sas-special-forces-hit-list-iraq-syria-isis-terrorist-attacks-drones-a7400756.html

We kill them where they hàve no rights.
Blunt but effective.

I agree with this, and using special forces is less random than drones.

Talking about taking our trash.

Berlin lorry attacker shot dead in Milan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38415287

It's dark in here...... it's getting too warm......where is my river of wine.......where are my virgins........Mohammed Atta? Is that you I hear?.......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Lets be honest. If your in Syria... Your likely not there for a good reason. If your near a frontline even less.
The odds on random backpackers going on a tour is not exactly high...

Funny you said that. Just read news of random american woman who went there for holiday. Gourgeous pictures. Would be nice place to visit if lt was safer.

Danger tourism is a thing.

I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.

Given that he escaped the scene on foot?? I'm assuming he had help.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

Here we go again.These people don't want to stay in Turkey

Maybe glorious Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP aren't a positive factor and the people would stay if the conflicts end was at a future not too far.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey and no matter how much money we spend that money will be spend on detaining them there.

If everyone in the USA wants to live in your home town, would you also say it is their choice to come and stay or do you want to have some part in this decision?
The wants of foreign nationals are not the main decisive factor. My home , my rules. Your home , your rules.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people risk their lives cause they see a better future for themselves in Europe.

What if their idea of their life here isn't coming true? Disenfranchised and a good recrutement pool for criminlas and extremists most likely...

A better future is a reason to immigrate, but it isn't seeking refuge from war. So either they are threathened by death ( some sort of war going on ) or they just look for a better place to be and this Planet is a big place. You don't have to pick Europe....
Lots of empty areas in the USA and Russia. Maybe the UK wants the people from its former colonies , or france or spain, portugal, the netherlands etc.?

Disciple of Fate wrote:
No one willingly risks their life for no reason. The argument of helping people over there always sounds nice, but usually result in the establishment of permanent refugee camps with people having to live out their lives there cause no state wants them.

Our idea, i mena the idea many in my country are running with isn't permanent camps but camps until the conflict ends. And we live in the middle of europe, we had enough conflicts here to know they don't have to be permanent.
We also repopulated cities after conflicts but on terms made by those who offer a place, not on terms imagined by those who want to come.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again there is the example of the Palestinians and several African nations.
Make no mistake, sending these people back to Assad is advocating death.

Why do we have to spent good tax money if we just have to ask you who is threathened by death and thus granted asyl?
maybe the real cases aren't that many? The numbers i have seen a low %, single digit. Only a few countries are so bad you almost offer asyl to most of them.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do you know what his regime does to the opposition? We have documented countless war crimes and disappearances.

How many leaders are still in charge if we make all of them responsible? 50%?

Disciple of Fate wrote:
You can call it silly and use all the cute orkmoticons you want but the fact is Assad will certainly kill a part of those that will be forced to go back.

Good. I'll heed your request and add some cute orkmoticons
and I am calling it silly too.
Always a pleasure to serve a request.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why do you think Europe grants political asylum?

Lets see... maybe the wars we had?

Disciple of Fate wrote:
The law is very clear on political asylum, we can't knowingly send people back into danger. Sure a few might be bad people, but we shouldn't demonize the whole group because of these.

Identify the criminals and extremists and sort them out is demonizing?
What type of Danger is enough to send no one there? Bad perspectives? a hard life without luxuries? lots of work?
Germany already has ~170.000 who aren't sent anywhere...so who is deporting people to their deaths here?

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Following my logic you should screen refugees and only deny those that pose a danger to our society. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of murderers that might be amongst refugees. I advocate against blanket rejection of the refugees over these few murderers. I think you misunderstood my point.

In this case, about 530 persons shouldn't be in Germany. But they are. Because Laws kick in when the crime happened.
So , your suggestion how to remove possible evildoers before they get to act?

Disciple of Fate wrote:
However to restate, you can't keep those refugees out if they want to come.

Yes we can.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were basically paying Turkey to detain them now while they threaten to open the floodgates again.

Turkey is lead by someone who is playing a dangerous game and the moment we have people with balls in charge is the time when threats from Turkey will cease.
Erdogans Turkey cannot solve the problems because they are part of it. We should give them nothing ( just send anyone back they try to "open the floodgate" for ) until they change their ways.
Lets move all the 60 mio refugees the UN lists to turkey. to make a point.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
It is just not economically feasible to build a system designed to keep them out.

But its is. As explained by Mr Müller.

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey, they want a future in Europe for their children and no supported refugee camp will ever provide the future Europe can.

The future Europe provides is?
Maybe we have no future to offer?

Don't get me wrong, i'd happily accept if Europe could save everyone, provide jobs for eyery human beeing and housing and welfare and and.. but IMO thats far beyond our capabilities. We are at best one link in a chain.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.

I do but if you want to believe I don't thats fine too.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Disciple of Fate has already pointed out that camps don't really work unless we're comfortable with creating a diaspora like the Palestinian refugees who are stuck in said camps because no one will let them in.

Palestinians are in camps run by Germany? Europe?
Don't you think a little research could dig up some success ?
hypothetical: if the netherlands sunk to the bottom of the sea, europe would find a new place for the people and won't push them around or keep em in camps for their whole life.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Help them over there" is a convenient way of not having to get near the people in need. You're ignoring the fact that the refugees are fleeing Syria because they're getting killed there in the first place (and you want to support one of the guys killing them) and you're ignoring past experiences with giant refugee camps.

Dear Mr potemkin, i not going to buy your village, sincerly 1hadhq.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You don't get to call anyone's posts absurd.

Everbody gets to.

Its not like some arguments are less well thought out by fellow dakkanauts.

He said absurd, got his own absurd in return. Just kicking the Ball into his half.

He got as far as Paris before anyone was looking for him. Traveled to the south of France overland, past all those sleepy French police. italian police were awake and doing searches of public transport.
He was supposedly stopped in a routine search. I doubt Italy routinely searches bus stops any more than anyone else.

My guess is that CCTv at major transport terminals picked him up as footage was sifted through, and police were dispatched to potential destinations.

He got off at the last stop, possibly because he saw police at prior bus stops, possibly because it was his intended destination. Then when he had to get off, he tried to talk his way out then pulled a gun and tried to shoot his way out.
Italian police are routinely armed, so nothing to draw on there, but I don't think this was an accidental find from a routine search. Amri likely got dragnetted.

Fether is dead, thats the main thing. Would have been nice to take him alive though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
AlmightyWalrus, it is possible the idea for Germany is to repatriate the back to Syrians once Syria is stabilised.

Merkel has likely realised she has made a mistake taking so many, and has in the least realised she has inflamed Germany by dong so and this policy has become her legacy.
1.1 million Syrians is one hell of a lot, even for a nation like germany. When you add the problems with the rapes and lack of integration, and the flat fact that they have been infiltrated; it makes sense to keep the Syrians together so that Germany can say it was their idea all along to let the refugees in for humanitarian relief, feed and cloth them then send them home when the war if over, with a restructuring package.

How many are actually Syrian? I'm seeing a lot of North Africans. This is an economic migration.

Some. On the list of people who are meant to leave Syrians make 4th place, so even they aren't all fleeing from threats of death...

Beeing from Syria means your chances are good.
North Africa however, especially Tunisia where the lorry driver was from, and you are looking at 0.2% asylum seekers accepted.

North africa just lets their youth leave and many get caught in questionable actions. And they won't want the back.
If politicans stopped freezing like a statue to evade any claim they do it wrong , the problem of organized groups of north africa and eastern europe is one whose solution also helps the people who have a real claim on seeking refuge.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.

Europe is just one large soft target. Open borders and all.

He was wanted and crossed 3 borders and 1200km, 5-5 stations...

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

Here we go again.These people don't want to stay in Turkey

Maybe glorious Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his AKP aren't a positive factor and the people would stay if the conflicts end was at a future not too far.

Ok, lets dance. They don't decide who rules Turkey anymore than we do. And these people made a conscious decision to flee abroad instead of to government held territory. Who says they even want or can go back to an Assad controlled Syria.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey and no matter how much money we spend that money will be spend on detaining them there.

If everyone in the USA wants to live in your home town, would you also say it is their choice to come and stay or do you want to have some part in this decision?
The wants of foreign nationals are not the main decisive factor. My home , my rules. Your home , your rules.

If the USA was involved in a violent civil war that was driven by a ruthless dictator murdering the opposition then yes I would (que Trump in the future joke ). Also you have to tell me what magical town in Germany all refugees go to. The Netherlands also takes in refugees. My part in the decision comes from the fact if it is safe to go back for these people, if Assad is still in charge this will most assuredly not be the case for a good amount of these people. You basically say that you don't care about the future of Syrians, either alive or dead.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people risk their lives cause they see a better future for themselves in Europe.

What if their idea of their life here isn't coming true? Disenfranchised and a good recrutement pool for criminlas and extremists most likely...

A better future is a reason to immigrate, but it isn't seeking refuge from war. So either they are threathened by death ( some sort of war going on ) or they just look for a better place to be and this Planet is a big place. You don't have to pick Europe....
Lots of empty areas in the USA and Russia. Maybe the UK wants the people from its former colonies , or france or spain, portugal, the netherlands etc.?

Disenfranchisement from living in a refugee camp is an even better recruitment pool, look at the Palestinians! Us not accepting them isn't going to make their opinion of them any more favourable.
A better future is also a good reason to leave an active war zone. These people don't all go to Europe. Look at the statistics, only 1 in every 10 displaced Syrians come to Europe, stop spreading this false information. And what if no other country wants to take them either? Should we let them die because it is politically convenient to keep them out of 'our house'?

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
No one willingly risks their life for no reason. The argument of helping people over there always sounds nice, but usually result in the establishment of permanent refugee camps with people having to live out their lives there cause no state wants them.

Our idea, i mena the idea many in my country are running with isn't permanent camps but camps until the conflict ends. And we live in the middle of europe, we had enough conflicts here to know they don't have to be permanent.
We also repopulated cities after conflicts but on terms made by those who offer a place, not on terms imagined by those who want to come.

We don't know if it will ever be safe for these people to return no matter how badly we like to pretend Assad will be magnanimous and forgive everyone. Please you are German, you are the definition of permanent. The war that Hitler started ended with the forced displacement of millions of people in 1945, not in the least ethnic Germans to what territory Germany currently occupies. You didn't have any control over Poland or Czechoslovakia forcibly exiling Germans that Germany had to accept. Don't come at me with your 'we live here we know, our terms', you obviously don't realize less then 70 years ago you didn't even decide your own fate.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Again there is the example of the Palestinians and several African nations.
Make no mistake, sending these people back to Assad is advocating death.

Why do we have to spent good tax money if we just have to ask you who is threathened by death and thus granted asyl?
maybe the real cases aren't that many? The numbers i have seen a low %, single digit. Only a few countries are so bad you almost offer asyl to most of them.

That's why these asylum procedures take years, they don't just accept everyone who says their in danger, but they won't send them back into an active war zone. And if you like it or not you still spend good tax money to keep them out of Germany. We pay Turkey a large amount of money to prevent more of them coming. The main refugees groups are from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, low %?? How safe are these?

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Do you know what his regime does to the opposition? We have documented countless war crimes and disappearances.

How many leaders are still in charge if we make all of them responsible? 50%?

Well we have Assad, Kim, Mugabe, Castro and a lot more that are edging out on the dictatorship and murderous regimes. Your response makes little sense to my question. Do you know what Assad has done to protesters and opponents?

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
You can call it silly and use all the cute orkmoticons you want but the fact is Assad will certainly kill a part of those that will be forced to go back.

Good. I'll heed your request and add some cute orkmoticons
and I am calling it silly too.
Always a pleasure to serve a request.

Always a pleasure to see someone who can gain enjoyment out of human suffering, shine on you crazy diamond

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why do you think Europe grants political asylum?

Lets see... maybe the wars we had?

Exactly, we know what happens if we send these people back. So why are you questioning letting these Syrians in to be tried against this procedure?

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
The law is very clear on political asylum, we can't knowingly send people back into danger. Sure a few might be bad people, but we shouldn't demonize the whole group because of these.

Identify the criminals and extremists and sort them out is demonizing?
What type of Danger is enough to send no one there? Bad perspectives? a hard life without luxuries? lots of work?
Germany already has ~170.000 who aren't sent anywhere...so who is deporting people to their deaths here?

Again you don't understand. Identifying the bad people isn't the problem. Saying to Syrians you can't come in because one or two of you might be bad is the problem. You do realize Syria is an active war zone and we are already deporting Syrians back to Turkey right? And danger as in that the regime will arrest and punish people for actions they should be punished for. For someone saying they know what political asylum is you don't seem to know the definition of danger in that context.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Following my logic you should screen refugees and only deny those that pose a danger to our society. I never advocated for blanket acceptance of murderers that might be amongst refugees. I advocate against blanket rejection of the refugees over these few murderers. I think you misunderstood my point.

In this case, about 530 persons shouldn't be in Germany. But they are. Because Laws kick in when the crime happened.
So , your suggestion how to remove possible evildoers before they get to act?

You can't remove those people if you don't know they are evil, are you trying to be dense? Imprison those who commit crimes and then either deport or observe them after they serve their sentence, you know like how we treat nationals who commit crimes? Again we don't send Syrians back now because its a WAR ZONE!

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
However to restate, you can't keep those refugees out if they want to come.

Yes we can.

Based on the fact that so many are already here I'm going to say we can't. Just look at the USA and Mexican immigration, they don't really want it yet they still come, don't pretend this is simple.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
Were basically paying Turkey to detain them now while they threaten to open the floodgates again.

Turkey is lead by someone who is playing a dangerous game and the moment we have people with balls in charge is the time when threats from Turkey will cease.
Erdogans Turkey cannot solve the problems because they are part of it. We should give them nothing ( just send anyone back they try to "open the floodgate" for ) until they change their ways.
Lets move all the 60 mio refugees the UN lists to turkey. to make a point.

If you say no he will personally help those refugees cross to make a point. Giving them nothing just gives him incentive to either force them to stay in Syria like he is doing or just shipping them on. We don't have anywhere near the funds to secure the entire EU border. Your UN comment is just so far outside of reality you might as well advocate sending them to Mars.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
It is just not economically feasible to build a system designed to keep them out.

But its is. As explained by Mr Müller.

Again these people don't want to stay there regardless. Why do you think Germany and others pay Turkey so we can DEPORT THEM BACK THERE. If everything was so simple as mister Müller would want us to believe there wouldn't be a refugee rpoblem as we would have already tried this years ago.

 1hadhq wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
These people don't want to stay in Turkey, they want a future in Europe for their children and no supported refugee camp will ever provide the future Europe can.

The future Europe provides is?
Maybe we have no future to offer?

Don't get me wrong, i'd happily accept if Europe could save everyone, provide jobs for eyery human beeing and housing and welfare and and.. but IMO thats far beyond our capabilities. We are at best one link in a chain.

We are relatively rich enough to provide their children with an education and a job in the future. We have that future to offer even if you don't want to acknowledge or enable it, going back to Mexico and the USA.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.

Given that he escaped the scene on foot?? I'm assuming he had help.

Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.

 Breotan wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I'm angry that he was able to get all the way to Italy unnoticed. But at least they got him.

Given that he escaped the scene on foot?? I'm assuming he had help.

Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.

Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.

He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.

He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.

 Orlanth wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.

He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.

He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.

It depends on help. A unwittting help. That's not illegal.

If they helped plan, or supported the attack on the market in some way and knew plan.
That's criminal.

 Breotan wrote:
Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.

Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.

Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....

You're jumping straigth to the conclusion that he's had help without even considering the fact that he could've just taken a train or a bus to Italy and evaded police along the way. You ARE the "real villains" (other than the people who, you know, actually kill people), as you put it, because we can count on you blaming Muslims for absolutely everything. Meanwhile, you block people for daring to point out that doing things like disparaging every Bremainer based on the actions of individuals makes you a bigot.

You're not going to see this, but I'll say the same thing I said last time: if you don't want to be called a bigot, stop doing bigotted things.

And frankly europe is having it easy. Western countries(uk and us at the front) are causing refugee crisis but how many they take? Pittances. Poorer countries get like 20% population increase due to refugees. Finland thinks it's bad we got 30k refugee? Poorer contry with abut same population got over million...

And as for crimes...relative to number of people finns are causing abou 3-4 times more work to police than refugees. Even if you factor in cases where refugees were victims.

And it's not like terrorism is only what muslims do or what you call going to synago guns blazing? Happened day before berlin attack. Less in news though. Guess sells less.

 Orlanth wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why do you assume that the people who helped him are muslim? It is likely that they are but not certain.

He could hitchhike in an unwitting persons car, but that wouldn't be 'help' that would just be as accidental and incidental as the ticket barrier guy who sold him a train or bus ticket.

He had 'help' when a Polish lorry driver gave him a lift or remained in close proximity to him at a truck stop, got shot for his troubles, and his lorry used to murder shoppers at a merket.

The IRA got help from people who were neither catholic or irish. So a separate terrorist organisation with a grievance with western countries or sympathisers who are not a muslim could knowingly give aid to him. Jumping straight to the assumption that only a muslim would help him is incredibly dumb.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Of course he had help. And everyone who helped him will deny it. Later those same people will honestly wonder why there's so much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe and blame Europeans for it.

Yes indeed. But of course the real villains are all of us who are concerned about this. Our fear of Muslims after they kill us is what's making them kill us and if we just stop fearing them for killing us then they'll stop killing us.....

Behind all the sarcasm there is just a sad, sad inability to understand the modern geopolitical history of the middle east, most of which consists of us killing them for lulz and profit, with the odd coup, puppet dictator and terrorist funding and training thrown in for good measure. But no, they have no cause to be angry, they were just born evil, like Orcs, so we are justified in slaughtering them like Orcs.