|
Once again, as this is a sensitive topic and one that can cause a lot of unnecessary things to be said in the heat of the moment, be VERY careful about what you post. Think twice before actually stating something and please be considerate of anyone who may feel involved or affected. |
United States42636 Posts
On July 16 2016 03:31 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 16 2016 02:27 Sent. wrote:
You can't defeat radical islam but you can suppress it just like you can suppress fascism and communism. It is about as obtainable a goal as waging a war on drugs or crime. How many countries did the nazis occupy after World War II?
There are two ways of reading this question. The first is referring to people who are Nazis to which the answer is the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, the United States, East and West Germany, Poland and most other countries. All those countries were occupied by people, some of whom were Nazis. The second is looking strictly at the Nazi government of Germany and asking how many countries were controlled by that government to which the answer is zero. The problem is that you seem to be suggesting we defeat radical Islam in the same way we defeated the Nazis, even though radical Islam doesn't have armies in the field or a state to really attack (the rebellion ongoing in Syria and Iraq notwithstanding but that isn't the source of this violence). The Allies in WWII didn't stop Nazis from occupying all those nations, there are still millions of Nazis worldwide.
So, if we assume you're implying that the means behind the total defeat of the Nazis is applicable as a template then it fails utterly. The disorganized and decentralized nature of radical Islam most closely mirrors the situation of individual Nazis following the war in which they continued their lives pretty much unaffected.
|
On July 16 2016 04:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2016 03:52 SK.Testie wrote:What the majority of the right wing wants is to just be left in peace in their own countries. That's it. They do not want "economic migrants". They were willing to accept temporary refugees. This is what the right wants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36786438 So they want a complete economic disaster? Because the economic benefits of migrants are pretty thoroughly documented. Most uneducated post in the thread. An economic disaster if we don't bring in refugees? Besides you can bring in refugees from places that tend to assimilate better. Sure, there can be some short term costs, but why not look at the long term costs like prison costs, policing costs, welfare, other people feeling alienated, and to some people who care, the fact that with the current status quo, Europe will be a Muslim majority within 100 years? Same way that there is a short term cost to Britain leaving EU has clear short term implications, but people love to focus on the economy a maximum 5 years down the line and it's what leads to the stupid politics we have in Canada and some EU countries where they hop back and forth.
Much like the US, the population of the EU is shrinking. Many of your countries have a negative fertility rate and have for almost a decade. There are sections of Spain that have 3 people die for everyone one person born. It is a problem that is not easily fixed without inviting people to move to your country.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster
|
On July 16 2016 04:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 16 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:On July 16 2016 03:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 16 2016 03:32 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 16 2016 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What I learnt from this thread :
1- People don't give a damn about the fact that the guy was basically not religious. It's about islam and it's all because islam is inherently evil (oh that's clever...)
2- People are absolutely certain that it's a terrorist attack just like the Bataclan. It could, for what we know, be a mass murder from a mentally unstable guy vaguely inspired by ISIS. Just like there are mass shootings in the united state. Fact is it could be, and we don't know.
3- Our right wing team seems to completely disregard the fact that ISIS claims that its goal with those attacks is to mount muslims and non muslims against each other because that's how they recruit. They said it. But our beloved TL far right boys have no problem playing ISIS game and being the useful idiots of islamist terrorists.
Of course these attacks have something to do with Islam. To deny this is not only insane, it completely destroys any credibility people might think they have on the subject because it is such a demonstrably false assumption. When the perpetrators so often claim to support Islamist groups, why would you ignore that? My theory is that it is an equally stupid defensive reaction to people who believe that all muslims are terrorists. Anyone who can think clearly about anything knows that the truth is somewhere in between. ISIS is not representative of most muslims in the west, but it is an Islamic movement. I think the biggest criticism from the right is the mere fact that the left insists on denying that it doesn't have anything to do with Islam which, as you note, is insane. I agree it's stupid to assume all muslims are terrorists, but I don't really see any establishment, media, or right politicians making this point so I'm not really worried about it becoming a norm. The left insisting that Islam is a religion of peace and refusing to acknowledge that they are related has become an accepted norm though, in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, and serves to both ignore the problem while agitating everyone who knows that it does have something to do with Islam. what left says that? In all the forums I'm on, which are left-leaning forums, I haven't seen anyone actually pushing/claiming the Islam is a religion of peace thing. The only people who seem to bring that up are far-right people claiming that there exists some leftists saying that. It doesn't seem to represent a significant part of the overall left from what I've seen. Well the current up-and-coming new leader the left has elected to represent them for one 'Nothing to do with Islam' right there for you If she doesn't represent the vast majority of the left as you insist maybe you should elect someone better to represent you than her 'Tolerant' when so many pewpolls show disproportionately large numbers of muslims being some of the most backwards people in the world on things like gay rights, women's rights, etc, even when they're polled in western countries It's a problem that people like her are ignoring and marginalizing, and then whenever the right wants to talk about it, they become 'closed-minded racists/bigots who are trying to say all muslims are evil'. It's not engaging with the opposition it's just mudslinging and ignoring the problem yeah, she is incorrect there. Though she'd be right if the statement was toned down a bit.
She's not trying to be right, she's trying to be presidential. The strategy that has been decided against ISIS is to separate as much as possible islam and terrorism, so that, you know, you aim for the opposite of what they want. In writing that tweet she follows that policy decision.
Maybe once Trump is elected, the US can change that policy decision and instead have "muslim" in every one of their negative sentences. Perhaps the world will magically fare better then. Perhaps it won't.
|
Isn't the left against climate change? A shrinking European population should be seen as a good thing. Flooding migrants into countries where people clearly do not want them is just asking to bring strife and chaos into a very otherwise peaceful society. Also, if you want the population to grow, just give more incentives to people who have children and families. Tax credits or breaks. Reasonable housing prices or increased child care services. The left in Sweden brought in migrants because they thought they would pay for their pensions. But again, 500/163,000 migrants have found jobs. Seems like a pretty big economic burden to strain their social systems.
Don't bring in a bunch of people who hate each other. It's arrogant and foolish.
|
On July 16 2016 04:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 16 2016 04:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2016 03:52 SK.Testie wrote:What the majority of the right wing wants is to just be left in peace in their own countries. That's it. They do not want "economic migrants". They were willing to accept temporary refugees. This is what the right wants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36786438 So they want a complete economic disaster? Because the economic benefits of migrants are pretty thoroughly documented. Most uneducated post in the thread. An economic disaster if we don't bring in refugees? Besides you can bring in refugees from places that tend to assimilate better. Sure, there can be some short term costs, but why not look at the long term costs like prison costs, policing costs, welfare, other people feeling alienated, and to some people who care, the fact that with the current status quo, Europe will be a Muslim majority within 100 years? Same way that there is a short term cost to Britain leaving EU has clear short term implications, but people love to focus on the economy a maximum 5 years down the line and it's what leads to the stupid politics we have in Canada and some EU countries where they hop back and forth. Much like the US, the population of the EU is shrinking. Many of your countries have a negative fertility rate and have for almost a decade. There are sections of Spain that have 3 people die for everyone one person born. It is a problem that is not easily fixed without inviting people to move to your country. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster
It can be very difficult and expensive to raise children in today's society, these rates can be raised by offering government programs, or cutting them if the population is too high. In Canada it was recently raised, but it's still abysmal. Either way, just bringing people in to pay people's pension is such low thought programs, with so many long term implications, yet they get shoved to the back.
|
United States42636 Posts
On July 16 2016 04:47 SK.Testie wrote:
Isn't the left against climate change? A shrinking European population should be seen as a good thing. Flooding migrants into countries where people clearly do not want them is just asking to bring strife and chaos into a very otherwise peaceful society. Also, if you want the population to grow, just give more incentives to people who have children and families. Tax credits or breaks. Reasonable housing prices or increased child care services.
Don't bring in a bunch of people who hate each other. It's arrogant and foolish.
I would be fine with a naturally reducing population to a more sustainable level in the UK. It made sense to cram as many people onto the island as possible when the problem was that Germany was simply bigger than either France or Britain and kept trying to fight them but hopefully we're past that now. But the numbers don't work out in terms of pensions and so forth, as I understand it. You need a certain number of working contributors to maintain the social benefits in place and the old retirees of Britain have no desire to make cuts to their pension to allow for a decreased labour force.
|
Something happening here. Some says terror attack some says coup. Well.... We have no idea whats happening.
|
On July 16 2016 03:17 Dan HH wrote:In Turkey alone there are twice as many refugees as all of Europe. The countries for which you wrote BENEFITS have under 10%.
Isn't that a lot of migrants for a country that's thousands of kilometers away in another region? It's just interesting to me that it's a foregone conclusion that they should take in anyone at all.
This could be what people mean when they quip that immigrants aren't going to steal your job.
|
On July 16 2016 04:56 Aceace wrote:
Something happening here. Some says terror attack some says coup. Well.... We have no idea whats happening.
Just have to wait. Some say military is doing martial law, so the coup. Some say Erdogan is dead. Lots of rumours will fly around. GL.
|
Yea, reports also of a Machete attack foiled at Nice vigil where mourners were praying for the dead...
|
On July 16 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:47 SK.Testie wrote:
Isn't the left against climate change? A shrinking European population should be seen as a good thing. Flooding migrants into countries where people clearly do not want them is just asking to bring strife and chaos into a very otherwise peaceful society. Also, if you want the population to grow, just give more incentives to people who have children and families. Tax credits or breaks. Reasonable housing prices or increased child care services.
Don't bring in a bunch of people who hate each other. It's arrogant and foolish. I would be fine with a naturally reducing population to a more sustainable level in the UK. It made sense to cram as many people onto the island as possible when the problem was that Germany was simply bigger than either France or Britain and kept trying to fight them but hopefully we're past that now. But the numbers don't work out in terms of pensions and so forth, as I understand it. You need a certain number of working contributors to maintain the social benefits in place and the old retirees of Britain have no desire to make cuts to their pension to allow for a decreased labour force.
Incentives for births is the far better option. It's more costly for globalists who hate seeing their profits fall and are in global competition with one another, but you cannot underestimate the importance of social cohesion. Violence has already increased in Europe. It's going to get worse if this level of mass immigration continues. I expect other peoples kids to see a lot of violence in their lifetime because our generation was full of soft leftist fools.
|
On July 16 2016 05:08 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2016 04:47 SK.Testie wrote:
Isn't the left against climate change? A shrinking European population should be seen as a good thing. Flooding migrants into countries where people clearly do not want them is just asking to bring strife and chaos into a very otherwise peaceful society. Also, if you want the population to grow, just give more incentives to people who have children and families. Tax credits or breaks. Reasonable housing prices or increased child care services.
Don't bring in a bunch of people who hate each other. It's arrogant and foolish. I would be fine with a naturally reducing population to a more sustainable level in the UK. It made sense to cram as many people onto the island as possible when the problem was that Germany was simply bigger than either France or Britain and kept trying to fight them but hopefully we're past that now. But the numbers don't work out in terms of pensions and so forth, as I understand it. You need a certain number of working contributors to maintain the social benefits in place and the old retirees of Britain have no desire to make cuts to their pension to allow for a decreased labour force. Incentives for births is the far better option. It's more costly for globalists who hate seeing their profits fall and are in global competition with one another, but you cannot underestimate the importance of social cohesion. Violence has already increased in Europe. It's going to get worse if this level of mass immigration continues. I expect other peoples kids to see a lot of violence in their lifetime because our generation was full of soft leftist fools.
You can’t solve the problem with policy to encourage having kids. The years of negative birthrates has already done the damage. Time travel would be needed to fix the problem without adding new people to the population.
|
On July 16 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 05:08 SK.Testie wrote:On July 16 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2016 04:47 SK.Testie wrote:
Isn't the left against climate change? A shrinking European population should be seen as a good thing. Flooding migrants into countries where people clearly do not want them is just asking to bring strife and chaos into a very otherwise peaceful society. Also, if you want the population to grow, just give more incentives to people who have children and families. Tax credits or breaks. Reasonable housing prices or increased child care services.
Don't bring in a bunch of people who hate each other. It's arrogant and foolish. I would be fine with a naturally reducing population to a more sustainable level in the UK. It made sense to cram as many people onto the island as possible when the problem was that Germany was simply bigger than either France or Britain and kept trying to fight them but hopefully we're past that now. But the numbers don't work out in terms of pensions and so forth, as I understand it. You need a certain number of working contributors to maintain the social benefits in place and the old retirees of Britain have no desire to make cuts to their pension to allow for a decreased labour force. Incentives for births is the far better option. It's more costly for globalists who hate seeing their profits fall and are in global competition with one another, but you cannot underestimate the importance of social cohesion. Violence has already increased in Europe. It's going to get worse if this level of mass immigration continues. I expect other peoples kids to see a lot of violence in their lifetime because our generation was full of soft leftist fools. You can’t solve the problem with policy to encourage having kids. The years of negative birthrates has already done the damage. Time travel would be needed to fix the problem without adding new people to the population.
Not only is it solvable, it would have been preferable. A section of one-two generations would have had to suffer harshly for it, but the lesson would have been learned and could be corrected for the future generations. They would understand what is needed.
Instead the left went full retard. It's using duct tape on a broken pipe. Sooner or later that pipe is going to burst and more blood than what had to be spilled is going to happen for the lefts unimaginable fuck up.
|
I'm not seeing any source for that statistic either in that blog, or in the Die Zeit article linked in the blog, or anywhere. Measuring functional illiteracy is fairly new, UNESCO only has this data on several countries.
And I like how you specifically said 'even the illiterate ones' instead of 'even the functionally illiterate ones', like conflating these two very different things helps your point. The majority of functionally illiterate people in Germany are gainfully employed. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo/files/2011/12/leo-Press-brochure15-12-2011.pdf
And lastly, in Syria the literacy rate for youth is 96%, and just under 50% for the over 65. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYR
Given the age of the people emigrating, even if the statistic in that blog isn't bogus, it doesn't tell you much about the literacy rate of the Syrian refugees in Europe.
|
On July 16 2016 05:20 Dan HH wrote:I'm not seeing any source for that statistic either in that blog, or in the Die Zeit article linked in the blog, or anywhere. Measuring functional illiteracy is fairly new, UNESCO only has this data on several countries. And I like how you specifically said 'even the illiterate ones' instead of 'even the functionally illiterate ones', like conflating these two very different things helps your point. The majority of functionally illiterate people in Germany are gainfully employed. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo/files/2011/12/leo-Press-brochure15-12-2011.pdfAnd lastly, in Syria the literacy rate for youth is 96%, and just under 50% for the over 65. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYRGiven the age of the people emigrating, even if the statistic in that blog isn't bogus, it doesn't tell you much about the literacy rate of the Syrian refugees in Europe.
Many (most?) of the refugees in Europe are not from Syria.
|
On July 16 2016 05:20 Dan HH wrote:I'm not seeing any source for that statistic either in that blog, or in the Die Zeit article linked in the blog, or anywhere. Measuring functional illiteracy is fairly new, UNESCO only has this data on several countries. And I like how you specifically said 'even the illiterate ones' instead of 'even the functionally illiterate ones', like conflating these two very different things helps your point. The majority of functionally illiterate people in Germany are gainfully employed. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo/files/2011/12/leo-Press-brochure15-12-2011.pdfAnd lastly, in Syria the literacy rate for youth is 96%, and just under 50% for the over 65. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYRGiven the age of the people emigrating, even if the statistic in that blog isn't bogus, it doesn't tell you much about the literacy rate of the Syrian refugees in Europe.
Afghani - Pakistani - Somali etc etc etc
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 16 2016 05:22 ZeroChrome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 05:20 Dan HH wrote:On July 16 2016 04:25 SK.Testie wrote:On July 16 2016 04:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2016 03:52 SK.Testie wrote:What the majority of the right wing wants is to just be left in peace in their own countries. That's it. They do not want "economic migrants". They were willing to accept temporary refugees. This is what the right wants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36786438 So they want a complete economic disaster? Because the economic benefits of migrants are pretty thoroughly documented. Even the illiterate ones? Fewer than 500 of 163,000 Asylum seekers have found jobs65% illiterate migrantsEconomic benefits? We'll see what those are worth in a century. I'm not seeing any source for that statistic either in that blog, or in the Die Zeit article linked in the blog, or anywhere. Measuring functional illiteracy is fairly new, UNESCO only has this data on several countries. And I like how you specifically said 'even the illiterate ones' instead of 'even the functionally illiterate ones', like conflating these two very different things helps your point. The majority of functionally illiterate people in Germany are gainfully employed. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo/files/2011/12/leo-Press-brochure15-12-2011.pdfAnd lastly, in Syria the literacy rate for youth is 96%, and just under 50% for the over 65. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYRGiven the age of the people emigrating, even if the statistic in that blog isn't bogus, it doesn't tell you much about the literacy rate of the Syrian refugees in Europe. Many (most?) of the refugees in Europe are not from Syria.
The claim about functional illiteracy in that blog he linked was specifically about Syria.
On July 16 2016 05:24 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2016 05:20 Dan HH wrote:On July 16 2016 04:25 SK.Testie wrote:On July 16 2016 04:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 16 2016 03:52 SK.Testie wrote:What the majority of the right wing wants is to just be left in peace in their own countries. That's it. They do not want "economic migrants". They were willing to accept temporary refugees. This is what the right wants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36786438 So they want a complete economic disaster? Because the economic benefits of migrants are pretty thoroughly documented. Even the illiterate ones? Fewer than 500 of 163,000 Asylum seekers have found jobs65% illiterate migrantsEconomic benefits? We'll see what those are worth in a century. I'm not seeing any source for that statistic either in that blog, or in the Die Zeit article linked in the blog, or anywhere. Measuring functional illiteracy is fairly new, UNESCO only has this data on several countries. And I like how you specifically said 'even the illiterate ones' instead of 'even the functionally illiterate ones', like conflating these two very different things helps your point. The majority of functionally illiterate people in Germany are gainfully employed. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo/files/2011/12/leo-Press-brochure15-12-2011.pdfAnd lastly, in Syria the literacy rate for youth is 96%, and just under 50% for the over 65. http://www.uis.unesco.org/DataCentre/Pages/country-profile.aspx?code=SYRGiven the age of the people emigrating, even if the statistic in that blog isn't bogus, it doesn't tell you much about the literacy rate of the Syrian refugees in Europe. Afghani - Pakistani - Somali etc etc etc + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
This discussion is approaching Gotunk levels of truthist links
|
On July 15 2016 19:47 NukeD wrote:
In my opinion muslim community should really start speaking out against this shit and educate their fellow muslims who tend to be radicalized. I don't think we will ever be able to change anything as outsiders, it is a reform that islam needs from within and it's about time they started agresivelly condemning this behavior and preaching for tolerance to their brethren. I envision them as too passive on this.
Okay I'm not sure what to think of this. The thing is first off we are speaking out against it. On all forms of social media, and in masajid all over these attacks are condemned. The thing is, these assholes ARENT going to masjids in the first place. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but beyond going to like the fucking swat valley and educating people I don't know what we can do. We are outspoken, but are voices are never recognized, the fact that this is constantly repeated shows the issue. Clearly being outspoken isn't enough. Tell me what I am supposed to do, I'll do it. I just don't know what to do...
|
On July 16 2016 05:43 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 19:47 NukeD wrote:
In my opinion muslim community should really start speaking out against this shit and educate their fellow muslims who tend to be radicalized. I don't think we will ever be able to change anything as outsiders, it is a reform that islam needs from within and it's about time they started agresivelly condemning this behavior and preaching for tolerance to their brethren. I envision them as too passive on this. Okay I'm not sure what to think of this. The thing is first off we are speaking out against it. On all forms of social media, and in masajid all over these attacks are condemned. The thing is, these assholes ARENT going to masjids in the first place. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but beyond going to like the fucking swat valley and educating people I don't know what we can do. We are outspoken, but are voices are never recognized, the fact that this is constantly repeated shows the issue. Clearly being outspoken isn't enough. Tell me what I am supposed to do, I'll do it. I just don't know what to do...
Its sad because so few news agencies cover the response from the Muslim communities when this happens:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/15/nice-france-muslim-leaders-are-heartsick-and-furious.html
But Diaby, who was well-known to Nice police as a petty criminal, turned out to have faked his own death and revealed that he was still alive in June. The men who run the snack shop in Nice that Diaby used to own are as scornful about Diaby’s alleged religious fervor as they are about the speculation in the international media today about the killer truck driver massacring people in the name of Islam.
“We know everyone in this community,” said Mohamed, who did not want to give his last name. “We know who ISIS tries to recruit. They don’t come to the mosques where people know and practice true Islam. They recruit the Muslim drug dealers on the corner.”
|
On July 16 2016 05:43 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 19:47 NukeD wrote:
In my opinion muslim community should really start speaking out against this shit and educate their fellow muslims who tend to be radicalized. I don't think we will ever be able to change anything as outsiders, it is a reform that islam needs from within and it's about time they started agresivelly condemning this behavior and preaching for tolerance to their brethren. I envision them as too passive on this. Okay I'm not sure what to think of this. The thing is first off we are speaking out against it. On all forms of social media, and in masajid all over these attacks are condemned. The thing is, these assholes ARENT going to masjids in the first place. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything, but beyond going to like the fucking swat valley and educating people I don't know what we can do. We are outspoken, but are voices are never recognized, the fact that this is constantly repeated shows the issue. Clearly being outspoken isn't enough. Tell me what I am supposed to do, I'll do it. I just don't know what to do...
Personally, it sounds like you're doing more than your part, so thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/q2Lup/0e04307f6f.jpg)
