|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 18 2018 01:41 sc-darkness wrote:
Fine, what's the definition of terror attacks in that case? The number is quite high so I doubt it's an attempt to murder all the time. Could it be also just harassment?
What exactly is the connection between "terror" and "attempted murder"?
|
On June 18 2018 01:41 sc-darkness wrote:
Fine, what's the definition of terror attacks in that case? The number is quite high so I doubt it's an attempt to murder all the time. Could it be also just harassment?
Nononononono. Harassment is something completely different.
Trying to spread fear through vandalism, destruction, attacks on property and people is what is called terror. That's what this article is talking about.
Just because you and many others have started to give terror the conotation of "islamic attacks" doesn't change that definition. Of course, non-muslims can't fullfill that conotation. Cheapest tricks ever.
|
Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) on Sunday signed a controversial deal that could finally resolve a long-running dispute over the latter's name.
Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias and his FYROM counterpart Nikola Dimitrov signed the deal, which will see FYROM renamed as the Republic of North Macedonia, in the border region of Prespes.
The signing ceremony was attended by the prime ministers of Greece and FYROM, Zoran Zaev and Alexis Tsipras (pictured above center with Dimitrov, left, and Kotzias, right).
The deal, which has been protested by hardliners on both sides of the border, must now be ratified by the respective parliaments, and will also be put to a referendum in Macedonia. The process will take months.
http://www.dw.com/en/greece-macedonia-sign-historic-deal-to-end-naming-dispute/a-44261028
They managed to piss off nationalists in both countries, sounds like they're on the right path.
|
On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc.
You do know that very few people do that, statistically? The vast majority of people probably scream the local language version of 'fuck you' before they start killing.
|
On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour.
"Second generation immigrants" means nothing. If you were born and raised in your country of residence, you're not an immigrant, even if your parents were.
In March 2018, Le Monde published an infography about the 78 attempted attacks in France since 2013 (link in French). Out of the 147 people involved, 124 were French (84,3%). Unless all of them were naturalized immigrants, there you go with your "native population committing terrorism".
|
While I think second generation immigrant is a dumb thing, you can't ignore the fact that they're probably influenced by their parents' culture. You're probably influenced by your parents' culture even if you're native. I'll let you think of differences and I'm not discussing this topic further simply because there isn't the right audience. You have your beliefs, I have my beliefs and that's it. I'm just saying social environment matters.
On June 18 2018 03:30 TheDwf wrote:
Unless all of them were naturalized immigrants, there you go with your "native population committing terrorism".
That's a very important distinction, and I can't tell because that article is in French.
|
For those of us who are not interested in the current distraction, i want to talk about Seehofer a bit more.
Firstly, a bit of background with regards to understanding. The CSU/CDU situation is slightly strange. The CSU only exists in the state of Bavaria, and on a national level, they usually act in unison with the CDU, and the two parties are very, very linked in a lot of regards, so far that they are basically seen as one party most of the time. Both are conservative parties, and they don't fight each other, meaning the CSU is only on the ballot in Bavaria, and the CDU is on the ballot everywhere else. The CSU is incredibly strong in Bavaria, and has had a total majority here for basically ever. The CDU is not as strong in their states as the CSU is in Bavaria, but they are a lot stronger in total since they are not confined to a single state.
Generally speaking, the CSU has always been the most rightwing party which is socially acceptable in Germany. They usually stand further to the right than the CDU, and all of the remaining parties are to the left of them. This has changed with the appearance of the AfD, but a lot of people don't see them as an acceptable party currently. However, this appearance of a party to the right of the CSU has lead to major problems for them, to the point where the CSU is in danger of losing their absolute majority in Bavaria (The only state where they exist). And since there are state elections in Bavaria in autumn, the CSU believes that they need to shift further right to keep their majority. They absolutely have no interest in a coalition with the AfD, both because the AfD is shunned in a lot of the population, and because they fear that they will lose more of their right-wing voters to the AfD in the process. Also, having an absolute majority is obviously very nice for them.
Whether that right-wing shift will ultimately help them remains to be seen, but they are definitively currently trying to build a profile in that way, both through Seehofers actions on a national level, and a lot of weird local stuff like the previously mentioned mandatory crosses in government buildings in bavaria.
It will be interesting to see how the conflict between the chancellor and a minister will play out. Generally speaking, i doubt that Seehofer will be able to push something which conflicts with european law through, especially while in conflict with the chancellor. He might, however, be able to delay and look as if he is doing something until the elections in Bavaria are done.
|
The CSU really has two modes. The one is the campaign mode that is usually fairly right-wing but it's mostly a branding effort. When the CSU governs undisturbed they actually do so in a fairly pragmatic way. Bavaria is one of the most multicultural states in Germany with huge amounts of immigration and also led one of the largest refugee efforts, and profits from global business and having a modern economy and so on. So going back to some sort of reactionary politics isn't an option anyway.
When the CSU isn't caught up in polling mania they actually do a pretty good job in the state. The problem is that the AfD has gained traction and threatened their absolute majority which has led to hysteria within the party, add to that the election that's coming up and they're panicking. I don't think they're making it better though with their current efforts.
|
On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour.
Multiple far right wing terror attacks or plots in the last year in the U.K, often motivated by the kind of rhetoric you've adopted.
|
On June 18 2018 06:26 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour. Multiple far right wing terror attacks or plots in the last year in the U.K, often motivated by the kind of rhetoric you've adopted.
This is totally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Terror attacks happen because of radical islam and that's the only reason. Also known as jihad. Moreover, they blame western troops in the Middle East. That's probably why the west is targeted more than eastern Europe.
|
On June 18 2018 15:04 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:26 kollin wrote:On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour. Multiple far right wing terror attacks or plots in the last year in the U.K, often motivated by the kind of rhetoric you've adopted. This is totally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Terror attacks happen because of radical islam and that's the only reason. Also known as jihad. Moreover, they blame western troops in the Middle East. That's probably why the west is targeted more than eastern Europe.
The only reason? Is this a joke? Terror is a means to an end, there are political terror groups. Jihad isn't the only reason to commit violence on this planet. We have hundreds of low-key far-right attacks every year, some left-wing attacks as well.
|
On June 18 2018 15:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 15:04 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 06:26 kollin wrote:On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour. Multiple far right wing terror attacks or plots in the last year in the U.K, often motivated by the kind of rhetoric you've adopted. This is totally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Terror attacks happen because of radical islam and that's the only reason. Also known as jihad. Moreover, they blame western troops in the Middle East. That's probably why the west is targeted more than eastern Europe. The only reason? Is this a joke? Terror is a means to an end, there are political terror groups. Jihad isn't the only reason to commit violence on this planet. We have hundreds of low-key far-right attacks every year, some left-wing attacks as well.
Ok, when I referred to terror attacks I meant the one we often hear about in media. That's the one I meant. You have a valid point though.
|
On June 18 2018 15:04 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:26 kollin wrote:On June 18 2018 00:58 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:55 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:53 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:48 iamthedave wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? Which left wing person thinks there should be 'completely open' borders? I don't believe I have ever in my entire life heard a left wing politician say such a thing. I've heard lots of right wing people say it ad nauseum, but strangely, never seen it from an actual left wing politician. I can say with authority that's never been the policy in Britain, not in the entirety of the Labour Party, Lib Dem or Green Party's history. I'm not aware of the American Democrats proposing such a thing, either. What about your own country? On June 18 2018 00:43 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 00:41 TheDwf wrote:On June 18 2018 00:39 sc-darkness wrote:
I'm not trolling. I just don't understand why there can't be a second opinion about borders other than what left wing thinks which is completely open borders. What is a valid second opinion in that case without being called fascist, xenophobe, etc? I would love so much living in your world where left-wing thought is dominant in migratory policies, where can I enter that alternative reality? Well, you're already living in it and it's not alternative. The west has so many immigrants from outside Europe. Is that not enough or do you want looser immigration control? You... do know why there was an immigrant uptick, right? That it's not the consequence of normal immigration policy but a certain, particular, special thing happening? Do you mean refugees? I just want less of people screaming "Allahu Akbar" before they start killing. If that means tighter border control, then so be it. Border control isn't working at the moment, so something has to be done without someone being called fascist, xenophobe, etc. Ah so terrorism comes from immigration now, thanks for showing your cards Yes, first generation or second generation immigrants and this is what media reports. I don't make it up. I can find a lot of links about it. Do you want to prove me wrong though? When did native population start committing terrorism? Or, you're going to mention Breivik in which case odds are not in your favour. Multiple far right wing terror attacks or plots in the last year in the U.K, often motivated by the kind of rhetoric you've adopted. This is totally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Terror attacks happen because of radical islam and that's the only reason. Also known as jihad. Moreover, they blame western troops in the Middle East. That's probably why the west is targeted more than eastern Europe.
Hahahaha what. If you define terror attacks as carried out by Muslims then yeah it's hard to find example of nativist terror attacks jesus christ engage your brain
|
To be fair, if you're young enough almost all terrorist attacks you ever heard of are done by islamists. IRA and ETA are disarmed, FARC is going into politics and the drug war in America... Too far away :p
|
On June 18 2018 17:54 schaf wrote:
To be fair, if you're young enough almost all terrorist attacks you ever heard of are done by islamists. IRA and ETA are disarmed, FARC is going into politics and the drug war in America... Too far away :p
Which again is mainly due to the weird new definition where it is only terror if it is islamist.
|
Thats not the definition anyone sane is using. But You cant deny that islamist are responsible for most deadly terrorist attacks in western world in recent years. I have no problem qualifying some forms of neonazis agression against refugees or refugee center as terror atatck since it both uses violence and have political goal, but saying that they are equivalent to islamist terror attack that leaves 70 people dead is nosense.
Breivik is a good example of fairly recent non islamist terrorist in Europe. He clearly had a political goal in mind and tried to achieve it by use of violence so he fits definition very well.
|
Terror and criminality are way to mixed up nowadays.
Terror originally was a political instrument of groups (and rarely of individuals) and was originally affiliated with (state) actions of monarchs, revolutionaries and extremist parties.
Nowadays the term is almost exclusively used for actions NOT comitted by state officials, but by individuals with political or religious motives, and which imply killings.
|
Ah jeez, when someon'es definition of terrorism is that it has to be islamic terrorism, and that's why all terrorism are islamic terrorism you know that they are well and truly screwed up. I mean, you could be a child under ten, but if you can use the internet, you can just search and see. Nevermind ETA and IRA and low deathcount high frequency white supremacists attacks. Breivik alone has killed more than the deaths of some countries.
|
On June 18 2018 19:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ah jeez, when someon'es definition of terrorism is that it has to be islamic terrorism, and that's why all terrorism are islamic terrorism you know that they are well and truly screwed up. I mean, you could be a child under ten, but if you can use the internet, you can just search and see. Nevermind ETA and IRA and low deathcount high frequency white supremacists attacks. Breivik alone has killed more than the deaths of some countries.
When you start comparing deaths like that you are already in the trap. Example: there was a single incident at a Christmas Market in Germany. These things are open for like 30 days and there are probably over a thousand of them in the country. And even there most people didnt get physically hurt, much less died. If you start casting your vote based on that rather than things that concern you everyday like taxes and contract rights it just shows one thing: you can't process media correctly. (Which IS hard, because that's how they make money and they don't want you to think on your own, but rather you should take their opinions and buy their paper again to satisfy your need for that bias again)
|
On June 18 2018 19:12 Big J wrote:
Terror and criminality are way to mixed up nowadays.
Terror originally was a political instrument of groups (and rarely of individuals) and was originally affiliated with (state) actions of monarchs, revolutionaries and extremist parties.
Nowadays the term is almost exclusively used for actions NOT comitted by state officials, but by individuals with political or religious motives, and which imply killings.
You are mixing up terror and terrorism. Very common in English, but only creates confusion, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
