|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote:![[image loading]](http://3p3mq242g5jc2ki76r3wi6fq.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-13-at-4.38.22-PM.png) a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point.
Yes, in fact I believe Hollande overreacted by closing our borders : it's impossible to keep this situation for more than a few days.
|
On November 15 2015 04:05 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:02 mdb wrote:On November 15 2015 03:50 ZeromuS wrote:On November 15 2015 03:46 mdb wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: So what? Why should I care? Its basically saying not to paint all refugees. If refugees did do this, they weren't really refugees, they just abused the lack of coordination from the EU to deal with refugees to pull off the attacks. If the paris attacks have any bearing on the refugee crisis, its that the EU needs a properly coordinated and central approach to the issue. They need to support refugee access to the EU through some sort of channel, and some way to provide temporary residence while screening is enforced, with stronger border controls at the outside of the EU as opposed to the focus on internal border controls an an ad hoc country by country manner. But thats a seperate debate. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these "refugees" know within themselves who the terrorists among them are. They know which ones came to Europe to find better life and which ones came to fight a war.But they never tell. So when this "refugee" wave started a lot of people warned that many jihadist will enter EU hidden amongst the others... and now we have Paris. So they dont care about me, why should I care about them? That's a baseless assumption.
You are naive.
|
On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders...
It looks like welfare states are more likely to disappear than for these countries to have reasonable border control.
|
Canada11431 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:07 BlitzerSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:03 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 04:00 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Falling wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: So our duty is to welcome the world's deserters? Gaaaah. I find this attitude so frustrating. I get the anger in the wake of the violent attack. But I'm so grateful that Canada welcomed my Mennonite ancestors who 'deserted' communist Russia, as the ones who stayed behind were hauled off to the gulags. And there was significant suspicion in Canada that Ukrainian immigrants might be communist infiltrators, but the fear of those who fled was misplaced. We survived and integrated. It's ironic considering how harsh are Canadas conditions of emmigration Oh Canada was very, very harsh in their immigration policy. East Europe immigrants were middle of the totem pole- lower in desirability than the Brits, and Germans, but higher than Africans, Jews, and Asians. The fact that we were given a chance, makes we want to see my own country give the Syrians refugees the same chance- my uncle is helping coordinate our community sponsor a family. Does Canada come to Europe to pick up Syrians refugees or does it just wait for them to reach Canada? Because if it's the latter then you are just filtering the poor and the rich and we all know that richer people are happier and less prone to extremism compared to poorer people. Not exactly a noble way.
In our local case- sponsorship, by definition, means they do not have the means to get over here on their own- we raise half and the government matches. That's how MCC brought my people over in the first place (well, I don't know about the government matching part- I suspect that's a modern thing) and how we're locally getting this particular refugee family over this time.
|
On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders...
And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns.
|
On November 15 2015 04:12 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote:
Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible.
I am not an expert in white supremacy but e.g. the KKK was openly anti christian, as can be confirmed on wikipedia: Show nested quote +It adopted a standard white costume (sales of which together with initiation fees financed the movement) and code words as the first Klan, while adding cross burnings and mass parades. It stressed opposition to the Catholic Church.
The KKK is not the only white supremacist organization. That said if you go on wikipedia apparently the KKK are protestants and anti-catholic rather than anti-christian and they did some terrorist stuff in the 1800's against people including blacks, catholics and jewish people.
|
On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns.
Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people.
|
On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people.
You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_-
|
11589 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 03:36 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 03:26 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 03:19 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 03:15 damoonwolf wrote:On November 15 2015 02:52 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 02:39 Mikku wrote:On November 15 2015 01:45 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 00:22 Jibba wrote:
I know this is the thread for Paris but I think people should also know that ISIS set off two bombs in Beirut yesterday, killing 40+ and wounding 200+.
I don't think that should go ignored by westerners (even though I'm sure it will be.) Both countries need support. Why would it be known by westerners, the vast majority if murders arent even caused by terrorists who claim to be Muslim, but the media paints the picture it wants to paint, and right now that picture is that Islam needs to go. ISIS could not be more "unIslamic". Everything they do and dont do goes against Islamic teachings. Cricketer, have you ever actually read Quran and Sunnah? What ISIS do is exactly what Muhammad, Ali, Abu And another did. if I recited a passage of the bible to an ISIS member and told him it was the Quran he would eat it up because these guys know nothing about the religion they use. They dont pray or fast or got to pilgramige because if they did they wouldnt be doing what they do. Islam only allows violence in self defense. You're wrong. According to different former member is ISIS who come back in europe. Their day in ISIS was about training fight, pray and read Qoran. Some of them said ISIS was too religious for them. Than they had go for fight and no for pass the half or their time to pray and read Qoran. Despite a idea well spread in north america, ISIS is a highly religious organisation. The life or their membrer are dicted by, and don't want to see this is make a big misinterpretation oft what they are, why they born and what they want. This is why there is no end to this argument. No matter what I say or how much evidence I provide, you still cling to your bigoted beliefs, claiming that what I am saying is incorrect but whatever you say or bring to the table proving Islam is bad is perfectly reasonable and true. Muslims can't win in a debate that isn't even a debate, because no matter what we say, it won't change your blind opinion on the matter. Muslims can't win in a debate because they avoid all debate by accusing anyone who'd criticize them of being bigoted and racist. It's literally impossible to argue against you. It's impossible to argue against your narrow understanding of Islam which completely excludes anything you personally don't like. It's pointless because your rejection of the bad parts of Islam doesn't change the fact that they exist, but so many people act like the disconnect is absolute. It isn't. The fact that there are bigoted people who criticize your religion doesn't mean that the ideology as a whole cannot be discussed. Sorry if it comes off as harsh by the way, I just think it's frustrating that there are these social matters to discuss but we can't because the debate is muddied by angry people on both sides who just have an agenda. Your wrong and I will tell you why, you dont present someone with the idea that a religion needs reform or some sort of evolution by telling them that their are "bad parts" in it. As an outsider with little to no knowledge of religion in general (except perhaps any faith you might have grown up with) let alone Islam I can assure you that when you tell someone that ISIS did this and therefore it is a bad part of your religion you need to reform them you arent making a very good case. Its like me telling white people that White supremacists and right wing nutjobs are the bad part of white people and we should call them terrorists and talk about it. After all they have killed more north americans than ISIS has. ISIS mostly kills Muslims. Then again, I dont know about the subject so it would be stupid coming from me so even if thats true I wont sit here without the requisite information do some googling, or in Angry Mags case, google anti muslim websites. This thread is not debating the merits and demerits of religion in general or Islam in particular, but obviously its easy to shit or religion and then listen to people argue back at you about how all bad Muslims are sponsored by or created by western powers in cahoots with the Saudi's. Its the same discussion the same narrative and the same back and forth. This is not the place for it. This is for people to talk about the events of last evening whether it be on condemnation, support or updates. Thank you for your frustration. Let's take your example with White Supremacists, which we openly an legitimately hate. We can discuss the sources of their bullshit without being accused of anything. What does the WN stem from, what the problem is, what social issues we can try to tackle with which approaches and policies. Does the White Supremacist idea come from Christianity? Undoubtedly partially, you'll find that they're defending white christian values, family values and would probably try to spin it as a positive thing with those terms. Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible. In both cases, you have to tiptoe around the debate, because people are so outrageously ticklish when it comes to religion that the overarching ideology and its effects can't be discussed thoroughly without everyone being extremely cautious. "Now is not the time to talk about this. You're racist. You're bigoted." This debate is off limits because we've decided that. People are arguing that Islam has NOTHING to do with anything because most Muslims are good people. And I think that if we want to open the debate, we have to first weed out the people who are only interested in hate, first - and then the people who have a political incentive to try to derail the debate by putting blinders on and just arguing that there is no link at all between Islam and these actions. From my perspective, this entire ordeal is one that needs to be tackled by smart people (unlike myself) who are willing to have the debate. Unfortunately, most of what comes out is the people who want violence on one hand, and the people who are so fed up with the people who want violence that they assume anybody who wants to discuss it has an ill intent. I don't think it's healthy. There is no other social debate in the world where you have a strong correlation where you have a correlation between a specific part Islam and terrorism, and the issue is so politically loaded that nobody can even talk about it. To put it in exceptionally stupid terms, we have this issue here which is toxic, and the simple fact of pointing at it causes people to act as if it doesn't exist, because it's so fucking toxic that poking at it causes shit to happen. So what of those of us who want to talk about this??? I think it's important. To me it seems like there's this extremely discussion that needs to be had but IT'S HARD and everyone's avoiding it.
ISIS may be a religious organization, but the religion of Islam is not the root cause of their violence. They use the parts of their religion they cherry-pick for personal gain by indoctrinating young, impressionable Middle-Eastern boys and men to fight for them. These same boys and men who have seen their fathers die fighting westerners perpetuating the instability and violence in their region for over a century. It's quite easy to turn orphaned, war-torn populations into mindless soldiers for jihad, especially when there is such a powerful reinforcement of this ideology in the form of religion.
Belief is not the problem. There are peaceful Muslims across the globe that don't use their religion as a tool for hate and destruction. Unfortunately, as with any system of belief, Islam is being used by radicals to create an "us" and "them" worldview that demands these sort of extreme terrorist attacks against the people they blame for their woes. This is not unique to Islam. Islam is being used. Do not blame religion, blame the ones who would warp it into a twisted set of rules that rewards one for killing those that don't fit into its rigid structure.
There is no discussion to be had here because framing the discussion around Islam is the issue is simply ignorant.
|
On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people.
The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late.
|
On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:
[quote]
a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_-
East Berlin for the whole continent?
Bold.
On November 15 2015 04:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:
[quote]
a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late.
If you think Western Europe isn't xenophobic you should open any history textbook
|
On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:
[quote]
a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_-
Well, except that we want to register them before they cross the border, so instead of completly closing and refusing anyone, we just need them to gather together a some key point. At some point if they start forcing the iron curtain, it means they thing they are above the law of they country the want to live in, I personnally wouldn't mind shooting them, but there are more moral things to do, like capturing them and sending them back.
+ the border would be really small in comparison, we currently just need Greece, and sea patrol.
|
On November 15 2015 04:21 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_- East Berlin for the whole continent? Bold. Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:21 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"? Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them. Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late. If you think Western Europe isn't xenophobic you should open any history textbook
If you think Western Europe's xenophobia is comparable to Russia's, you should probably become better practiced in begging stupid questions 
|
On November 15 2015 04:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:21 las91 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:
[quote]
Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them.
Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_- East Berlin for the whole continent? Bold. On November 15 2015 04:21 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 03:58 Saumure wrote:
[quote]
Imagine that 0.1% of the 'refugees' are isis guys. This leaves us with 1000 arrivals this year. Not counting the people we already have here that would be willing to help them.
Yesterday's attacks features 8 terrorists for 126 dead and 300 injured (99 in critical condition). Wanna make the count for one thousand? Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late. If you think Western Europe isn't xenophobic you should open any history textbook If you think Western Europe's xenophobia is comparable to Russia's, you should probably become better practiced in begging stupid questions
It's been part of Western Europe's arsenal for hundreds of years.
I'm still just at a loss for yesterdays' events, feels like humanity is on an ever increasing slippery descent
|
11589 Posts
On November 15 2015 04:13 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:05 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:02 mdb wrote:On November 15 2015 03:50 ZeromuS wrote:On November 15 2015 03:46 mdb wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: So what? Why should I care? Its basically saying not to paint all refugees. If refugees did do this, they weren't really refugees, they just abused the lack of coordination from the EU to deal with refugees to pull off the attacks. If the paris attacks have any bearing on the refugee crisis, its that the EU needs a properly coordinated and central approach to the issue. They need to support refugee access to the EU through some sort of channel, and some way to provide temporary residence while screening is enforced, with stronger border controls at the outside of the EU as opposed to the focus on internal border controls an an ad hoc country by country manner. But thats a seperate debate. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these "refugees" know within themselves who the terrorists among them are. They know which ones came to Europe to find better life and which ones came to fight a war.But they never tell. So when this "refugee" wave started a lot of people warned that many jihadist will enter EU hidden amongst the others... and now we have Paris. So they dont care about me, why should I care about them? That's a baseless assumption. You are naive.
Do you know that often, these refugees come across the borders not even knowing the people they are with?
They leave behind their families, if they even have families anymore, to get to a place of safety, to live somewhere even just a slight bit better than the war-torn, bomb-riddled wasteland that is their home country. One where even Muslims themselves are being attacked and killed for not following the radical sort that these hate groups want to enforce upon the entire population.
Are there some of those people that might be bitter towards the West? Perhaps. But the attitude of people like you, that demonize them even as they flee certain death, certainly does not help. Hate breeds hate, after all. I don't condone it, but it's the truth.
Is ISIS infiltrating these refugee populations and using them as a way to gain entry to Europe? Almost surely. Do the refugees know which ones are ISIS? It's possible some of them know, but it's also certainly possible that the members of ISIS hide themselves very well (as they have to to gain entry). Should the EU then deny all refugees safe haven? No.
|
On November 15 2015 04:19 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:05 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 03:36 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 03:26 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 03:19 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 03:15 damoonwolf wrote:On November 15 2015 02:52 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 02:39 Mikku wrote:On November 15 2015 01:45 Cricketer12 wrote:On November 15 2015 00:22 Jibba wrote:
I know this is the thread for Paris but I think people should also know that ISIS set off two bombs in Beirut yesterday, killing 40+ and wounding 200+.
I don't think that should go ignored by westerners (even though I'm sure it will be.) Both countries need support. Why would it be known by westerners, the vast majority if murders arent even caused by terrorists who claim to be Muslim, but the media paints the picture it wants to paint, and right now that picture is that Islam needs to go. ISIS could not be more "unIslamic". Everything they do and dont do goes against Islamic teachings. Cricketer, have you ever actually read Quran and Sunnah? What ISIS do is exactly what Muhammad, Ali, Abu And another did. if I recited a passage of the bible to an ISIS member and told him it was the Quran he would eat it up because these guys know nothing about the religion they use. They dont pray or fast or got to pilgramige because if they did they wouldnt be doing what they do. Islam only allows violence in self defense. You're wrong. According to different former member is ISIS who come back in europe. Their day in ISIS was about training fight, pray and read Qoran. Some of them said ISIS was too religious for them. Than they had go for fight and no for pass the half or their time to pray and read Qoran. Despite a idea well spread in north america, ISIS is a highly religious organisation. The life or their membrer are dicted by, and don't want to see this is make a big misinterpretation oft what they are, why they born and what they want. This is why there is no end to this argument. No matter what I say or how much evidence I provide, you still cling to your bigoted beliefs, claiming that what I am saying is incorrect but whatever you say or bring to the table proving Islam is bad is perfectly reasonable and true. Muslims can't win in a debate that isn't even a debate, because no matter what we say, it won't change your blind opinion on the matter. Muslims can't win in a debate because they avoid all debate by accusing anyone who'd criticize them of being bigoted and racist. It's literally impossible to argue against you. It's impossible to argue against your narrow understanding of Islam which completely excludes anything you personally don't like. It's pointless because your rejection of the bad parts of Islam doesn't change the fact that they exist, but so many people act like the disconnect is absolute. It isn't. The fact that there are bigoted people who criticize your religion doesn't mean that the ideology as a whole cannot be discussed. Sorry if it comes off as harsh by the way, I just think it's frustrating that there are these social matters to discuss but we can't because the debate is muddied by angry people on both sides who just have an agenda. Your wrong and I will tell you why, you dont present someone with the idea that a religion needs reform or some sort of evolution by telling them that their are "bad parts" in it. As an outsider with little to no knowledge of religion in general (except perhaps any faith you might have grown up with) let alone Islam I can assure you that when you tell someone that ISIS did this and therefore it is a bad part of your religion you need to reform them you arent making a very good case. Its like me telling white people that White supremacists and right wing nutjobs are the bad part of white people and we should call them terrorists and talk about it. After all they have killed more north americans than ISIS has. ISIS mostly kills Muslims. Then again, I dont know about the subject so it would be stupid coming from me so even if thats true I wont sit here without the requisite information do some googling, or in Angry Mags case, google anti muslim websites. This thread is not debating the merits and demerits of religion in general or Islam in particular, but obviously its easy to shit or religion and then listen to people argue back at you about how all bad Muslims are sponsored by or created by western powers in cahoots with the Saudi's. Its the same discussion the same narrative and the same back and forth. This is not the place for it. This is for people to talk about the events of last evening whether it be on condemnation, support or updates. Thank you for your frustration. Let's take your example with White Supremacists, which we openly an legitimately hate. We can discuss the sources of their bullshit without being accused of anything. What does the WN stem from, what the problem is, what social issues we can try to tackle with which approaches and policies. Does the White Supremacist idea come from Christianity? Undoubtedly partially, you'll find that they're defending white christian values, family values and would probably try to spin it as a positive thing with those terms. Can we argue that some of those ills stem from an interpretation of Christianity and other such things? There are probably grounds for that. The same can be said about Islam. The religion itself might be fine, but in many cases it comes with an ideology that I find to be reprehensible. In both cases, you have to tiptoe around the debate, because people are so outrageously ticklish when it comes to religion that the overarching ideology and its effects can't be discussed thoroughly without everyone being extremely cautious. "Now is not the time to talk about this. You're racist. You're bigoted." This debate is off limits because we've decided that. People are arguing that Islam has NOTHING to do with anything because most Muslims are good people. And I think that if we want to open the debate, we have to first weed out the people who are only interested in hate, first - and then the people who have a political incentive to try to derail the debate by putting blinders on and just arguing that there is no link at all between Islam and these actions. From my perspective, this entire ordeal is one that needs to be tackled by smart people (unlike myself) who are willing to have the debate. Unfortunately, most of what comes out is the people who want violence on one hand, and the people who are so fed up with the people who want violence that they assume anybody who wants to discuss it has an ill intent. I don't think it's healthy. There is no other social debate in the world where you have a strong correlation where you have a correlation between a specific part Islam and terrorism, and the issue is so politically loaded that nobody can even talk about it. To put it in exceptionally stupid terms, we have this issue here which is toxic, and the simple fact of pointing at it causes people to act as if it doesn't exist, because it's so fucking toxic that poking at it causes shit to happen. So what of those of us who want to talk about this??? I think it's important. To me it seems like there's this extremely discussion that needs to be had but IT'S HARD and everyone's avoiding it. ISIS may be a religious organization, but the religion of Islam is not the root cause of their violence. They use the parts of their religion they cherry-pick for personal gain by indoctrinating young, impressionable Middle-Eastern boys and men to fight for them. These same boys and men who have seen their fathers die fighting westerners perpetuating the instability and violence in their region for over a century. It's quite easy to turn orphaned, war-torn populations into mindless soldiers for jihad, especially when there is such a powerful reinforcement of this ideology in the form of religion. Belief is not the problem. There are peaceful Muslims across the globe that don't use their religion as a tool for hate and destruction. Unfortunately, as with any system of belief, Islam is being used by radicals to create an "us" and "them" worldview that demands these sort of extreme terrorist attacks against the people they blame for their woes. This is not unique to Islam. Islam is being used. Do not blame religion, blame the ones who would warp it into a twisted set of rules that rewards one for killing those that don't fit into its rigid structure. There is no discussion to be had here because framing the discussion around Islam is the issue is simply ignorant.
The discussion does not need to be framed around Islam, it needs to understand that it is one important concept. The people who are indoctrinated to ISIS often (not always) have some prior understanding of Islam which allows them to integrate ISIS's crazy stuff to their own beliefs. Much like Christianity can be used to be homophobic, it's a platform on which bad shit can be added. Is this not possible to discuss?
Perhaps a lot of Christians are fine with homosexuality, and yet that doesn't mean one cannot point at the correlation and say "there is something here". Something about Christianity preemptively supports the negative vision of homosexuality, right? Which takes absolutely nothing away from Christians who do NOT adhere to this vision, but there is a correlation (which does not imply causation) which NEEDS to be explored if we want to understand this phenomenon, right?
And so belief and ideology are a problem, they are at the very least something to explore and something to try to understand! To say "blame the individuals" seems to make sense until you understand that these phenomenons are not simple freak cases, they're part of a larger context which, of course, is not all religious - it's social and cultural and it has roots in poverty and oppression. It's all these things. It's religion too. It's belief, too. It doesn't take anything away from Muslims who don't adhere to this, but to just say we should ignore part of it because it's uncomfortable is absolutely absurd, in my opinion.
I mean to point at another example, the Christian man who went to Africa to talk about how horrible homosexuality is which eventually led to Uganda adopting horrible anti-homosexuality laws, he had a religious baggage. It doesn't mean Christianity is all bad, it means that it plays a role in how this is articulated. There's even a clip that John Oliver showed in one of his shows, where a Ugandan woman says "at first it wasn't Adam and Eve, it was Adam and Steve". Does Christianity really have NOTHING to do with this hatred of homosexuals? Even if it did not, it would be insane to say it cannot be discussed, it cannot be studied. It would be absurd to say the issue is too contentious to be looked at. Why silence thought? And once again this shouldn't be viewed as an affront to Christianity. The problem is it's offensive because it seems like a way in which Christianity could be attacked, but I have no interest in that. It's just clearly a factor.
And so while I understand the defense and the complete denial that it could even possibly be a factor, I disagree. It's an argumentative strategy that I can understand, but it closes off important topics that need to be discussed and are not irrelevant.
|
Easy to say when you have the Atlantic in between
|
On November 15 2015 04:26 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:25 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:21 las91 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_- East Berlin for the whole continent? Bold. On November 15 2015 04:21 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 15 2015 04:01 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Your logic is as pale as your sense of compassion. The notion that closing the borders or refusing all refugees entrance will stop that 0.1% from getting in and creating havoc is incredibly naive. I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders. When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late. If you think Western Europe isn't xenophobic you should open any history textbook If you think Western Europe's xenophobia is comparable to Russia's, you should probably become better practiced in begging stupid questions It's been part of Western Europe's arsenal for hundreds of years.
Playing fast and loose with historical false equivalency isn't much better. Keep trying, friend, you'll get it eventually.
|
On November 15 2015 04:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 04:26 las91 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:25 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:21 las91 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:19 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders.
When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. You mean with massive guarded fences and walls across Europe where people were shot on sight? -_- East Berlin for the whole continent? Bold. On November 15 2015 04:21 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:17 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:15 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:12 Faust852 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:10 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 04:08 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
I think there is an in between between having open borders with no control whatsoever, which was the case for France before the event, and closed borders.
When we think about shoting in the US, we french often feel like the solution is easy and it is that the US need gun control. Somehow, when shoting happen in France, control is unnecessary, useless or inefficient. Preventing guns from coming from Kosovo, Serbia or any other eastern country should be a priority, and for that we need control at borders. Control is not unnecessary so long as it remains reasonable. This soft border EU mess must indeed change, I doubt many reasonable people dispute that at this point. Anyway, it is known that welfare states cannot survive with permeable borders... And it is also known that impermeable borders are an impossible thing if said borders are over a certain length. Therein lies the reason why any movement towards making borders stricter must be honest with its limitations as it still makes room for humanitarian concerns. Well, I'd argue the USSR did a good job making a quasi impermable border which was much larger than the one we need currently to prevent the huge uncontroled flow of people. The strongest part of Russia's border control is its national ideology of xenophobia. Let's hope that doesn't become a part of Western Europe's arsenal, though it may already be too late. If you think Western Europe isn't xenophobic you should open any history textbook If you think Western Europe's xenophobia is comparable to Russia's, you should probably become better practiced in begging stupid questions It's been part of Western Europe's arsenal for hundreds of years. Playing fast and loose with historical false equivalency isn't much better. Keep trying, friend, you'll get it eventually.
You use big words but don't seem to know what they mean nor how they can be adjoined to actually create a coherent thought.
To the French posters, how large actually was the anti-immigration movement in France before yesterday?
|
On November 15 2015 03:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 03:47 kongoline wrote:On November 15 2015 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote: a lot of those "refuges" are actually the same people By "a lot", you mean "possibly one"?
Just in on lefigaro.fr
Deux migrants, enregistrés en Grèce, recherchés par la police
Deux migrants, enregistrés en Grèce, sont recherchés par la police dans le cadre des attentats de Paris, selon la police grecque.
Tlrd: Two migrants that came through Greece are possible suspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
