|
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 January 16 2016 17:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +
The charge that economic immigrants are masquerading as refugees, long denied here — including by Ms. Merkel herself — is now painfully, undeniably true
Source
Was that even up for debate? There's videos out there, of people learning the syrian accent/hymn to be able to fake it. Plenty of them. We found hundreds of counterfeit syrian passports, etc etc, it's hardly surprising.
Apart from that, when the whole crisis started, i asked how everything would be funded and at what kind of new taxes we'll look at for that. Back then the idea was ridiculed - i wonder what those people think now after they heard Schaeuble talking about taxing fuel even more than they already do.
That's gonna help selling refugees to the german population: tax the biggest taxpayer-group (drivers) even more.
|
it has all been revealed!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/12082757/Muslim-Brotherhood-using-migrants-as-invasion-force-to-seize-control-of-Europe-Czech-president-claims.html The Czech president has claimed the migration crisis in Europe is the result of a plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to “gain control of Europe”.
Milos Zeman explained the Brotherhood lacked the resources to launch a military invasion of the continent so was sending waves of migrants as an alternative force.
“It cannot declare war on Europe, it does not have enough forces for it, but it can prepare a growing migrant wave and gradually gain control of Europe as it has been happening in some West European cities that police are afraid to enter at night,” Mr Zeman told Czech Radio.
The president cited the Moroccan foreign minister and a crown prince from the United Arab Emirates as his sources of information behind his claim.
|
On January 16 2016 21:53 xM(Z wrote:it has all been revealed! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/12082757/Muslim-Brotherhood-using-migrants-as-invasion-force-to-seize-control-of-Europe-Czech-president-claims.html Show nested quote + The Czech president has claimed the migration crisis in Europe is the result of a plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to “gain control of Europe”.
Milos Zeman explained the Brotherhood lacked the resources to launch a military invasion of the continent so was sending waves of migrants as an alternative force.
“It cannot declare war on Europe, it does not have enough forces for it, but it can prepare a growing migrant wave and gradually gain control of Europe as it has been happening in some West European cities that police are afraid to enter at night,” Mr Zeman told Czech Radio.
The president cited the Moroccan foreign minister and a crown prince from the United Arab Emirates as his sources of information behind his claim.
I thought only America tried to elect conspiracy nutjobs.
But yeah sure the group that couldn't even take control of Egypt as its elected government is launching an invasion on the continent complete with manipulating ISIS into war to drive refugees to us.
sigh....
|
Maybe he meant Muslim terrorism in general but said Muslim Brotherhood hoping he'll sound well-informed just like media keep blaming ISIS (or al-Qaeda few years ago) for every Muslim extremist attack in the world, even those performed by lone lunatics. Idiotic statement anyway, I feel sorry for Czechs
|
Yeah, after all we never heard of muslim movements which said they want to conquer Rome, the western world and establish a global caliphate.
|
On January 16 2016 22:28 SoSexy wrote:
Yeah, after all we never heard of muslim movements which said they want to conquer Rome, the western world and establish a global caliphate.
Would the Muslim Brotherhood like to conquer Europe? Possible
Are they behind the 'invading refugee army' entering Europe to take us over from the inside? Hahahahahahaahaha
|
On January 16 2016 22:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 22:28 SoSexy wrote:
Yeah, after all we never heard of muslim movements which said they want to conquer Rome, the western world and establish a global caliphate. Would the Muslim Brotherhood like to conquer Europe? Possible Are they behind the 'invading refugee army' entering Europe to take us over from the inside? Hahahahahahaahaha
Probably not, but I would really like to fast forward time to 2116 and take a look at Europe. Oh boy, I would give all my money for that.
|
Before you imagine what Europe looked like 100 years in the future, you might want to look at Europe 100 years ago. From your tone you have some image of what Europe would look like, but if past history is any indication, the future is unpredictable.
|
On January 16 2016 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Before you imagine what Europe looked like 100 years in the future, you might want to look at Europe 100 years ago. From your tone you have some image of what Europe would look like, but if past history is any indication, the future is unpredictable.
Do you realize you basically nullified the value of an academic discipline called 'History'?
|
|
|
On January 16 2016 22:46 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Before you imagine what Europe looked like 100 years in the future, you might want to look at Europe 100 years ago. From your tone you have some image of what Europe would look like, but if past history is any indication, the future is unpredictable. Do you realize you basically nullified the value of an academic discipline called 'History'?
Not really. History is about the past. The past doesn't require prediction, just observation. It might sometimes be hard to observe, but that is a completely different problem than predicting the future.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any person in 1916 that would be able to make any even remotely exact predictions regarding what the world would look like in 2016. Meanwhile, we are quite capable of making pretty good statements regarding what the world looked like in 1916. (Spoiler: Shitty)
I doubt that there are any points in history where you would be able to find people making accurate predictions a hundred years into the future, and thus it sounds reasonable to assume that the world in 2116 will not be what we predict it to be now.
|
Are you serious? Everything you do in your life is based on some predictions about the future, and this is also true for other events. This is one of the most basic historical principles.What's the point of studying the past? It is done in order to understand the future. I could make thousands of example. I am baffled.
|
In that case, please give some of those thousands of examples. Because it appears to me that we are talking about completely different things here, as i find your point as far as i understand it similarly absurd as you seem to find mine.
From my understanding, there are many facets to studying history, but the major one being understanding how things came to be as they are now. There is a bit of "lessons from the past" going on with trying to prevent past mistakes being repeated. There is a big step from understanding the past behaviour of a system to being able to predict its future behaviour, especially when talking about a very complex system like earth with all the humans and outside influences influencing stuff. I doubt that any serious historian will claim to be able to predict what the world will look like in a hundred years with any sort of accuracy.
|
On January 16 2016 22:46 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 22:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Before you imagine what Europe looked like 100 years in the future, you might want to look at Europe 100 years ago. From your tone you have some image of what Europe would look like, but if past history is any indication, the future is unpredictable. Do you realize you basically nullified the value of an academic discipline called 'History'?
lol? The value of "History" isn't in its predicitve power. The predictive power of the discipline of history is practically nil. To get an idea of how bad history is at predicting the future, economists have a better chance of predicting the future. No one from Europe from 100 years ago could predict what Europe looks like now, and so on and so forth from 100 years before that. We can't even predict the fate of a country undergoing social change even 10 years in the future. Who knows what the myriad middle eastern states and the sunni/shia struggle will look like in 10 years? How about those currently undergoing power struggles like Myanmar, Thailand and Combodia? Tunisia? Lybia? Remember when Japan was predicted to become the worlds #1 economy? What about the EU in 10 years? Is history a useful indicator for the future? History is a tool, to use for policy, but it cannot, and will not predict the future. What historian predict the great events of the past year? Nevermind 100 years. A few social revolutions, a few battles going one way or another,a few wars going another way and Europe would look totally different now.
|
On January 16 2016 22:59 SoSexy wrote:
Are you serious? Everything you do in your life is based on some predictions about the future, and this is also true for other events. This is one of the most basic historical principles.What's the point of studying the past? It is done in order to understand the future. I could make thousands of example. I am baffled.
I am actually getting quite angry you are - STILL - trying to establish some kind of relation to fucking socrates and yourself in your sig, while at the same time typing ignorant stuff like this.
you learn history to understand it, in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
making predictions based on imperfect information... guess why we haven't gotten the hang of it yet, and - thank god - we never will?
|
On January 16 2016 19:18 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2016 17:41 Mohdoo wrote:
The charge that economic immigrants are masquerading as refugees, long denied here — including by Ms. Merkel herself — is now painfully, undeniably true
Source Was that even up for debate? There's videos out there, of people learning the syrian accent/hymn to be able to fake it. Plenty of them. We found hundreds of counterfeit syrian passports, etc etc, it's hardly surprising. Apart from that, when the whole crisis started, i asked how everything would be funded and at what kind of new taxes we'll look at for that. Back then the idea was ridiculed - i wonder what those people think now after they heard Schaeuble talking about taxing fuel even more than they already do. That's gonna help selling refugees to the german population: tax the biggest taxpayer-group (drivers) even more.
It was up for debate because there is a large fraction of the population that has consistently chosen to be willfully ignorant of the truth because political correctness is the cool thing to do nowadays, and balancing the budget isn't. Frankly it's a little unsettling to me that it took multiple terrorist attacks in France and a mass rape (erm... "only sexual assault" for those who are somehow trying to defend the event) in Germany before people started to even consider the possibility that this entire charade was a terrible mistake.
I lived in a country (Russia) where this sort of thing happened decades ago (holding schools hostage, suicide bombings, plenty more), and frankly none of this is any surprise. The East European nations also knew this to be true, and I'm certain that that played a bigger role in their lack of desire to take immigrants than "racist! racist! backwater nation!" like some here continue to insist.
|
And then you guys went on and elected Putin , glorious defender of orthodox values and look how well that has turned out.
If anything what we've learned from Russia is that domestic turmoil should not be used to stir up political atavisms.
|
|
|
Just because German media paints Putin in a poor light as a result of current events doesn't mean that he's been bad for Russia.
Many problems with him that most are willing to acknowledge, but:
1. He's done significantly more good than harm in the past 15 years and very few sane people would deny that.
2. You have pretty much directly stated that you don't see any value in any system other than the current government in your own country so you really aren't worth talking to.
|
He's done more good than Yeltsin, which to be fair isn't that much of an achievement. I can live with plenty of governments not just the ones that threaten peace on the European continent because they see imaginary enemies at every corner. I also don't know what your definition of a sane person is but opinion on the Russian government has tanked pretty much anywhere outside of Russia. The country is being isolated and no one knows how many decades it will take to undo this. This is bad for the Russian people and everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KdZ3vS1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j0kSDzL.jpg)
