Terrorist attack thread

[MB.]

11 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Nah, it's just that terrorists think it's just too fucking cold and don't want to pay £10 a pint. 

Nah, that's what we think Dazey, but since it's the same in Sweden, don't think that's it?

[SoulMonster]

1 hour ago, MB. said:

Sorry Soulmonster, but you live in Norway.

Nothing to be sorry about. When I say that I am okay with modest immigration that is a statement as a Norwegian with modest immigration to Norway. I am not speaking for anyone else. I am not saying everyone else should accept immigration. I am not saying anyone here is right or wrong. I am saying what I think on the subject, being a Norwegian living in Norway with modest immigration to Norway. I have no problems with Belgians saying enough is enough. They speak from their particular perspective, their background, their context, and they know this better than me. Nothing I have said could be construed as meaning we should all always accept unlimited immigration. Everything must be weighed against what a country can handle. This is realpolitik.

As for Norway. Yes, I agree with you, we should accept more immigrants. We can handle it. We can afford additional measures to ensue proper integration. We can afford the extra costs. Unfortunately, my fellow countrymen disagree and we are now accepting less immigrants. That is okay, we live in a democracy.

As for us not having a probem with Muslim extremists, that is not the case. We have a small group of radical Jihadists who are under constant surveillance, I hope. Fortunately for us, it seems like the problem is contained, unlike the situation in some other European countries. The irony is still that the fear of these few extremists, and the general fear of Eurabia has caused us to breed our own particular right-wing extremists who fight against immigration and Muslims in Europe by attacking our own, case in point Anderss Behring Brevik who killed 77 people in his absurd attack on Norwegian youth interested in politics So the fear of Muslims in itself may be taken to the extreme.

[MB.]

5 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

case  in point Anderss Behring Brevik who killed 77 people in his absurd attack on Norwegian youth interested in politics So the fear of Muslims in itself may be taken to the extreme.

Yeah, that's what I meant with nutcases of your own?

Thanks for your answer Soulmonster, good to see you do understand were we are coming from.

[MB.]

Today in Iraq an IS suiicide bomber blew himself up during a football tournemennt, killing at least 30 people and among them 17 kids.

[PappyTron]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You think I am crazy because I accept modest immigration even if I know this will probably result in more crime? Okay then. I think of it as our duty to help those that flee war and terror, just like Norwegians were helped during WWII when fleeing Nazi held Norway, and just like when Norwegians immigrated to America to escape poverty and religious intolerance back in the 19th century. I acknowledge and accept this might cause more crime in my country, but I believe it will be modest and temporary, especially considering the quotas we have and our ability to adjust them as we go along, and I base this on historical examples and a belief that we can do better. I also accept and acknowledge immigration will be a strain on our welfare system and that it will affect my life negativelly, to some extent (e.g. through higher taxes). Again, I am still in favour of modest immigration despite this. At its core is the golden rule.

I don't consider the chance of Norway ending up as Belgium to be probable or even possible. Neither do I fear what has happened in Sweden, simply for the fact that we don't have as many immigrants to Norway as Belgium and Sweden have had, especially not from those countries, and on top of that failed to such an extent in integration. So trying to scare me with these examples won't work - I have never argued for immigration quotas similar to Belgium and Sweden so those outcomes are simply not conceiveable.

Nobody is talking about "modest immigration" though, and if you are then you are the only one here doing so. What everyone else is discussing is the wholesale flooding of countries across Europe by people from third world nations whose cultures are anathema to our own and who bring poverty and crime with them, along with potential radicals. Likewise, when you state that it is our duty to help others and that you accept that crime may well rise in Norway, that's very easy to say. Will you sing the same tune if your wife is raped? If your child is killed? Moreover, you seem completely indifferent to the plight of your neighbour Sweden which now has the second highest number of reported rapes in the world. Your response falls back on the same trite nonsense every time "That's sad, but we accept that there might be higher crime rates". I'm sure that all of those Swedes will sleep well knowing how their rapes are "something we accept might happen".

I don't consider the chance of Norway ending up as Belgium to be probable or even possible.

Well good for Norway! Are you familiar with the phrase "I'm all right, Jack"? Well, that is you to a T.

I must be dumb because I don't see how accepting some immigration means I am responsible for illegal immigration

If you are dumb then it is because you want to talk about one thing (small scale immigration) when everyone here is clearly talking about something else, and then act naive over it.

We have had modest immigration in Norway for decades and we certainly haven't been dragged down to Hades. And if I felt we were I would be opposed to further immigration

Ah, so there is a point where you would say "enough is enough". It seems, like always, that that point would be when it starts having an affect on you directly. So, you've spent this thread chastising people for not having flowery feelings towards mass immigration into their countries and for feeling that culture clash is a real problem, yet now you say that you'd happily do something about it if those same events happened to Norway. Talk about rank hypocrisy.

So trying to scare me with these examples won't work - I have never argued for immigration quotas similar to Belgium and Sweden so those outcomes are simply not conceiveable.

Nobody is trying to scare you, simply point out how damn rich it is for you to tell people in this thread that their fears are unfounded and that it's their duty to help when the things that are happening in their countries, right now, are the very things that you say you would do something about if they started to happen in Norway. So, Lio needs to shut up, MB needs to shut up, JeanGenie needs to shut up, I need to shut up, yet if the things that we are talking about happened in Norway then SoulMonster wants to be able to shout as loud as he likes.

[MB.]

Ofcourse they haven't been dragged down to Hades Pappy, cause they do this:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/01/20/norway-sends-syrian-refugees-back-to-russia/

[PappyTron]

6 minutes ago, MB. said:

Ofcourse they haven't been dragged down to Hades Pappy, cause they do this:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/01/20/norway-sends-syrian-refugees-back-to-russia/

I'm sure that they will be returning to Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium or the UK some time soon! Get thrown out by one country? No worries; there are plenty of others to go to. In the meantime, Norwegians can sip their coffee and tell people that we must all help more.

[MB.]

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

I'm sure that they will be returning to Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium or the UK some time soon! Get thrown out by one country? No worries; there are plenty of others to go to. In the meantime, Norwegians can sip their coffee and tell people that we must all help more.

 

The reached their quota Pappy, it's no their problem.?

[Dan H.]

Pappy's got a lot of good thoughts.

This particular issue feels so muddled up and complicated. I definitely feel that developed countries across the globe have a humanistic responsibility to help the people of undeveloped and war torn countries. 

But like Pappy said, allowing an unchecked stream of immigrants in, especially those who have (unfortunately) been overexposed to violence and radical idealism, will bring a host of social and economic issues, some of which could claim lives or muddle up the cultural structure of said developed nations. 

Not sure really if the price tag is worth it, in the case of mass immigration. 

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

Pappy's got a lot of good thoughts.

This particular issue feels so muddled up and complicated. I definitely feel that developed countries across the globe have a humanistic responsibility to help the people of undeveloped and war torn countries. 

But like Pappy said, allowing an unchecked stream of immigrants in, especially those who have (unfortunately) been overexposed to violence and radical idealism, will bring a host of social and economic issues, some of which could claim lives or muddle up the cultural structure of said developed nations. 

Not sure really if the price tag is worth it, in the case of mass immigration. 

Very well said Dan.

[Dan H.]

RIP to the victims of the ISIL attack in Iraq today. Many of the dead were children ages 10-16.

 

Iraq is reported to be in the works of launching campaign to retake key cities in ISIS territort

 

[Georgy Zhukov]

2 hours ago, Dazey said:

Very well said Dan.

I am in favor of letting some of them in, screened thoroughly. Of course the US screen process is among the most thorough. 

[Georgy Zhukov]

11 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

RIP to the victims of the ISIL attack in Iraq today. Many of the dead were children ages 10-16.

 

Iraq is reported to be in the works of launching campaign to retake key cities in ISIS territort

 

Lets hope it goes well. A lot of people may be concerned about the Kurdish advance on Mosul being slow, but well planned and successful military operations usually are. Especially if they want to prevent heavy losses. Once they take Mosul, it will make it easier to push Daesh out of Iraq.

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Nobody is talking about "modest immigration" though, and if you are then you are the only one here doing so. What everyone else is discussing is the wholesale flooding of countries across Europe by people from third world nations whose cultures are anathema to our own and who bring poverty and crime with them, along with potential radicals. Likewise, when you state that it is our duty to help others and that you accept that crime may well rise in Norway, that's very easy to say. Will you sing the same tune if your wife is raped? If your child is killed? Moreover, you seem completely indifferent to the plight of your neighbour Sweden which now has the second highest number of reported rapes in the world. Your response falls back on the same trite nonsense every time "That's sad, but we accept that there might be higher crime rates". I'm sure that all of those Swedes will sleep well knowing how their rapes are "something we accept might happen".

 

 

Well good for Norway! Are you familiar with the phrase "I'm all right, Jack"? Well, that is you to a T.

 

 

If you are dumb then it is because you want to talk about one thing (small scale immigration) when everyone here is clearly talking about something else, and then act naive over it.

 

 

Ah, so there is a point where you would say "enough is enough". It seems, like always, that that point would be when it starts having an affect on you directly. So, you've spent this thread chastising people for not having flowery feelings towards mass immigration into their countries and for feeling that culture clash is a real problem, yet now you say that you'd happily do something about it if those same events happened to Norway. Talk about rank hypocrisy.

 

 

Nobody is trying to scare you, simply point out how damn rich it is for you to tell people in this thread that their fears are unfounded and that it's their duty to help when the things that are happening in their countries, right now, are the very things that you say you would do something about if they started to happen in Norway. So, Lio needs to shut up, MB needs to shut up, JeanGenie needs to shut up, I need to shut up, yet if the things that we are talking about happened in Norway then SoulMonster wants to be able to shout as loud as he likes.

What do you think would be the overall correct course of action?

[PappyTron]

4 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

What do you think would be the overall correct course of action?

Well, as an overarching choice, I want the west to stop getting involved in the troubles of the world because we rarely make it better and usually make things worse. Is Iraq better off? Syria? Afghanistan? In terms of refugees, I'd like to ensure that those who are seeking the aid of the west are refugees and not economic migrants. If that takes refugee camps where a person must stay for a week, a month or a year, then so be it. I'd also like a system where people are returned to their homeland when safe to do so; refuge should not be a permanent solution. Call me an asshole, but I'm not, in the main, a fan of disadvantaging people born of a nation in order to bend over backwards to people of another nation.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Nobody is talking about "modest immigration" though, and if you are then you are the only one here doing so. What everyone else is discussing is the wholesale flooding of countries across Europe by people from third world nations whose cultures are anathema to our own and who bring poverty and crime with them, along with potential radicals. Likewise, when you state that it is our duty to help others and that you accept that crime may well rise in Norway, that's very easy to say. Will you sing the same tune if your wife is raped? If your child is killed? Moreover, you seem completely indifferent to the plight of your neighbour Sweden which now has the second highest number of reported rapes in the world. Your response falls back on the same trite nonsense every time "That's sad, but we accept that there might be higher crime rates". I'm sure that all of those Swedes will sleep well knowing how their rapes are "something we accept might happen".

Well good for Norway! Are you familiar with the phrase "I'm all right, Jack"? Well, that is you to a T.

If you are dumb then it is because you want to talk about one thing (small scale immigration) when everyone here is clearly talking about something else, and then act naive over it.

Ah, so there is a point where you would say "enough is enough". It seems, like always, that that point would be when it starts having an affect on you directly. So, you've spent this thread chastising people for not having flowery feelings towards mass immigration into their countries and for feeling that culture clash is a real problem, yet now you say that you'd happily do something about it if those same events happened to Norway. Talk about rank hypocrisy.

Nobody is trying to scare you, simply point out how damn rich it is for you to tell people in this thread that their fears are unfounded and that it's their duty to help when the things that are happening in their countries, right now, are the very things that you say you would do something about if they started to happen in Norway. So, Lio needs to shut up, MB needs to shut up, JeanGenie needs to shut up, I need to shut up, yet if the things that we are talking about happened in Norway then SoulMonster wants to be able to shout as loud as he likes.

If you haven't realized I have been talking about modest immigration than you have't been reading my posts. I stated it explicitly form the get-go and have repeated it throughout the discussion:

It is mass-simplification to an extent where it really becomes irrelevant. No one here is advocating completely open borders, are there? The real situation is more like 100.000 knocking on your door and 1 of these perhaps wanting to kill you depending upon what happens. Through better integration, turning someone away at the door who raises red flags, demanding that the immigrants do their part in integration, removing external factors for conflicts, preventing radicalization, preventing travels to foreign countries to take part if wars, etc, we can still accept modest immigration with very little negative effects. In my humble opinion. We have failed at this before, now we have to learn from our mistakes. [Wednesday 10:18].

and

I have simply never argued for open borders alike to USA pre-1920s and not even the type of immigration performed in some other European countries like Sweden. [Yesterday, 19 hrs ago].

I have also implicitly stated that Sweden and Belgium may have accepted too many immigrants (see quote above). Insinuating that I am in any way or form happy or indifferent to what is happening in Sweden, or Belgium, is again being ridiculous.

I haven't chastised anyone. In fact I have been rather clear on there being no right or wrong in this discussion and that the amount of immigrants each country can accept is contextual. See especially posts from 20 and 16 hours ago in response to M.B.. The only thing I have expressed some disagreement on is my fellow Norwegians and our decision to reduce the quotas. This also lies inherent in the quote from above since better integration requires substantial resources on the country's part which we cannot reasonably assume every country can afford.

I have also never said anyone's "fears are unfounded". In fact, and this is amusing, I have stated the exact opposite (Wednesday 11:57). I have also said that I understand people being worried (Friday 2:14). What I have done, though, is to speak out against a general fear of Muslims (look back to a post from Jenie and my reply), the villification of a whole, diverse group of people, and I have tried to make a point of terrorism becoming rarer in Europe and that we are much better off than a couple of decade ago, in contrast to what soe people suggested.

I have never said anyone needs to shut up, but if you are going to continue making a fool of yourself by not reading my posts, putting words in my mouth, and arguing against me as if I want every country to accept an unlimited amount of immigrants, then maybe you should?

 

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

If you haven't realized I have been talking about modest immigration than you have't been reading my posts. I stated it explicitly form the get-go and have repeated it throughout the discussion:

It is mass-simplification to an extent where it really becomes irrelevant. No one here is advocating completely open borders, are there? The real situation is more like 100.000 knocking on your door and 1 of these perhaps wanting to kill you depending upon what happens. Through better integration, turning someone away at the door who raises red flags, demanding that the immigrants do their part in integration, removing external factors for conflicts, preventing radicalization, preventing travels to foreign countries to take part if wars, etc, we can still accept modest immigration with very little negative effects. In my humble opinion. We have failed at this before, now we have to learn from our mistakes. [Wednesday 10:18].

and

I have simply never argued for open borders alike to USA pre-1920s and not even the type of immigration performed in some other European countries like Sweden. [Yesterday, 19 hrs ago].

I have also implicitly stated that Sweden and Belgium may have accepted too many immigrants (see quote above). Insinuating that I am in any way or form happy or indifferent to what is happening in Sweden, or Belgium, is again being ridiculous.

I haven't chastised anyone. In fact I have been rather clear on there being no right or wrong in this discussion and that the amount of immigrants each country can accept is contextual. See especially posts from 20 and 16 hours ago in response to M.B.. The only thing I have expressed some disagreement on is my fellow Norwegians and our decision to reduce the quotas. This also lies inherent in the quote from above since better integration requires substantial resources on the country's part which we cannot reasonably assume every country can afford.

I have also never said anyone's "fears are unfounded". In fact, and this is amusing, I have stated the exact opposite (Wednesday 11:57). I have also said that I understand people being worried (Friday 2:14). What I have done, though, is to speak out against a general fear of Muslims (look back to a post from Jenie and my reply), the villification of a whole, diverse group of people, and I have tried to make a point of terrorism becoming rarer in Europe and that we are much better off than a couple of decade ago, in contrast to what soe people suggested.

I have never said anyone needs to shut up, but if you are going to continue making a fool of yourself by not reading my posts, putting words in my mouth, and arguing against me as if I want every country to accept an unlimited amount of immigrants, then maybe you should?

 

1 - Your initial foray into this discussion was that we have a responsibility to help those in need and that we should not turn away those fleeing from war. Based on that I would assume that you do not believe that we should place quotas on those seeking aid as war refugees.

2 - You then went on to state that what is happening in Sweden and The Netherlands are their own fault.

3 - You admit that you don't know the first thing about Islam, but at the same time want to tell people that the majority of Muslims are "good people" and don't believe the "bad stuff" in the Koran. How do you know this, by the way?

4 - You dismissed JeanGenie by stating "You are colored by bad inexperiences (sic) (...) and not indicative of the mentality of a huge and extremely ethnic diverse groups as Muslims". So, despite JeanGenie stating her personal knowledge, you pooh-pooh her because she hasn't met all Muslims, despite the fact that she was clearly only talking about those whom she has personal experience of.

5 - You tell JeanGenie "Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes". That's akin to telling a person who's just had a heart attack that it's their own fault and that everyone must learn from them and do better. Talk about crass.

6 - You say that you haven't chastised anyone, but you have, multiple times, told people that their personal experiences aren't enough for you and that their personal impressions of what is happening in Europe shouldn't be used as a valid reference point because they might be viewing all Muslims to be the same.

7 - Funnily enough, the couple of Germans that you have spoken to are seemingly a wide enough slice of the population to allow yourself the pleasure of stating why Germany is so keen on mass immigration. It seems that your experiences with a few people is enough to state things with conviction, but JeanGenie, Lio and MB's experiences are not.

8 - You state that you accept that immigration leads to an increase in crime. I point out that Sweden now has the second highest number of reported rapes in the world. Your reply to this is that we accept the risks. You accept that your country doesn't have this problem because your country doesn't accept so many immigrants. However, you feel qualified to speak to those of us from countries that do have mass immigration by stating that we (by which you mean "you", because it doesn't apply to SoulMonster here) accept the risks. Clearly, MB, Lio, JeanGenie don't accept the risks, yet you keep talking down to them. Basically, a bomb just went off near some of our posters and your response boils down to "That's very sad, but we must help these people and the risks are worth it because we must help".

9 - You admit that you don't worry about Norway becoming like Belgium, Sweden or The Netherlands, but tell people from those countries that the risks are worth it. You, a non-victim, are literally telling victims that their victim status is worth it because your conscious tells you so.

10 - I'm sorry if you do not understand the subtle phrasing of the English language when I use the term "shut up". Given that you use English here daily, and nominally so well, I would have assumed that you would understand figurative vs literal.

11 - Again, nobody is vilifying Muslims. People are vilifying those who act out atrocities and they are vilifying those who run around in gangs in various areas. I have pointed out, moreover, that those who pick and choose which parts of the Koran to follow are not, by Muhammad's own words, Muslims. So no, nobody is picking on Muslims.

12 - Terrorism is not the sole reason for fear. As I told you, Germany alone has reported 10s of thousands of crimes, per year, that are committed by immigrants and the Murder rate in the UK is on the rise, again, based on the work of a Professor of Criminology, because of mass immigration. So yes, "we" are worse off and that isn't touching financially.

Lio, MB, JeanGenie, Lenny, anyone; feel free to read through all content between SoulMonster and myself, individually and collectively, and feel free to tell me if I have misrepresented what SoulMonster has said either here on in any of my previous posts or if I have "made a fool of myself". If so, I shall apologise unreservedly.  I will not expect SoulMonster to do the same.

Edited March 27, 2016 by PappyTron

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, PappyTron said:

1 - Your initial foray into this discussion was that we have a responsibility to help those in need and that we should not turn away those fleeing from war. Based on that I would assume that you do not believe that we should place quotas on those seeking aid as war refugees.

2 - You then went on to state that what is happening in Sweden and The Netherlands are their own fault.

3 - You admit that you don't know the first thing about Islam, but at the same time want to tell people that the majority of Muslims are "good people" and don't believe the "bad stuff" in the Koran. How do you know this, by the way?

4 - You dismissed JeanGenie by stating "You are colored by bad inexperiences (sic) (...) and not indicative of the mentality of a huge and extremely ethnic diverse groups as Muslims". So, despite JeanGenie stating her personal knowledge, you pooh-pooh her because she hasn't met all Muslims, despite the fact that she was clearly only talking about those whom she has personal experience of.

5 - You tell JeanGenie "Belgium has failed utterly. I have already stated 5 reasons why your country has the largest problem with Muslim terrorists in Europe. The rest of Europe must learn from your mistakes". That's akin to telling a person who's just had a heart attack that it's their own fault and that everyone must learn from them and do better. Talk about crass.

6 - You say that you haven't chastised anyone, but you have, multiple times, told people that their personal experiences aren't enough for you and that their personal impressions of what is happening in Europe shouldn't be used as a valid reference point because they might be viewing all Muslims to be the same.

7 - Funnily enough, the couple of Germans that you have spoken to are seemingly a wide enough slice of the population to allow yourself the pleasure of stating why Germany is so keen on mass immigration. It seems that your experiences with a few people is enough to state things with conviction, but JeanGenie, Lio and MB's experiences are not.

8 - You state that you accept that immigration leads to an increase in crime. I point out that Sweden now has the second highest number of reported rapes in the world. Your reply to this is that we accept the risks. You accept that your country doesn't have this problem because your country doesn't accept so many immigrants. However, you feel qualified to speak to those of us from countries that do have mass immigration by stating that we (by which you mean "you", because it doesn't apply to SoulMonster here) accept the risks. Clearly, MB, Lio, JeanGenie don't accept the risks, yet you keep talking down to them. Basically, a bomb just went off near some of our posters and your response boils down to "That's very sad, but we must help these people and the risks are worth it because we must help".

9 - You admit that you don't worry about Norway becoming like Belgium, Sweden or The Netherlands, but tell people from those countries that the risks are worth it. You, a non-victim, are literally telling victims that their victim status is worth it because your conscious tells you so.

10 - I'm sorry if you do not understand the subtle phrasing of the English language when I use the term "shut up". Given that you use English here daily, and nominally so well, I would have assumed that you would understand figurative vs literal.

11 - Again, nobody is vilifying Muslims. People are vilifying those who act out atrocities and they are vilifying those who run around in gangs in various areas. I have pointed out, moreover, that those who pick and choose which parts of the Koran to follow are not, by Muhammad's own words, Muslims. So no, nobody is picking on Muslims.

12 - Terrorism is not the sole reason for fear. As I told you, Germany alone has reported 10s of thousands of crimes, per year, that are committed by immigrants and the Murder rate in the UK is on the rise, again, based on the work of a Professor of Criminology, because of mass immigration. So yes, "we" are worse off and that isn't touching financially.

Lio, MB, JeanGenie, Lenny, anyone; feel free to read through all content between SoulMonster and myself, individually and collectively, and feel free to tell me if I have misrepresented what SoulMonster has said either here on in any of my previous posts. If so, I shall apologise unreservedly.  I will not expect SoulMonster to do the same.

1. I have never we should help ALL that need our help. It should have been obvious to you, both from what I have stated explicitly and implicitly, that I have been talking about modest immigration, meaning that we will have to turn away some people. I even quoted examples posts of mine expressing this view to you in the last post. So when you interpret it as I mean that we have an obligation to help ALl that is entirely your own thinking mistake. You then go from this misunderstanding to conclude that I am against quotas on immigration DESPITE me stating in the very first post that I am talking about modest immigration (see quote in my last post). This is rather incredible. You misunderstand and twist and then you disregard everything I might say that contradicts your favoured interpretation. Confirmation bias delux.

2. I have never said that was has happened in Belgium and Sweden are Belgium and Sweden's fault. That is ridiculous. I have said that both the nation that accepts immigrants and immigrant together have a responsibility for the integration. Belgium and Sweden, together with their immigrants, are at fault for the flawed integration. Yes, they are, both of them. As for the terrorism, and any other crimes that may result from all of this, the entire blame lies with the perpetrators.

3. I have never admitted such a thing . I know that most Muslims don't condone terror because I have read surveys on this and because my collection of Muslim friends are representative. And please, please, please don't reveal yourself to be one of those ridiculus believers in taqiyya and Eurabia.

4. JeanGenie said that she believes "most Muslims silently agrees with these attacks". Nothing suggested she only spoke about "those Muslims she has talked to". When I said this was villification of a diverse group of people she followed up with, "you don't live where I live" which again suggests she is basing her general damnification of Muslims on her own non-representative experiences. If she only meant that "those Muslims I have spoken to silently agrees with these attacks" then I think she should come out and clear that up ;).

5. Yes, that was crass. I stand by it, though. It is balanced by other posts expressing sympathy for Belgians and what they have gone through. But nice of you to reprimand me for being crass.

6. No, this is pure fantasy. Could you point out where I have chastised anyone for not having "flowery feelings towards mass immigration into their countries and for feeling that culture clash is a real problem"? I might have disagreed with your fear of culture collision but I hope you don't feel chastised by that. If I have come across as too rough then I sincerely apologize.

7. Germans are a much more homogenous group of people than Muslims and concluding based on "a few" is much more sound, or less un-sound, than concluding based on one. Still, this was meant as a possible additional explanation for German's policy re: immigration, not a conclusive end-all explanation.

8. Every country who allows immigration accepts the inherent risks involved. Norway accepted the risks when we increased the quotas. Germany acepted the risks when they opened their borderes. Belgium accepted the risks when they allowed immigration. I accept the risk when I personally vote for politicians who are in favour of (modest) immigration. I have no problems with people not accepting these risks, or countries deciding they can't afford it. This has also been stated explicitly a few times now. Nothing I have said could be construed - I hope - in the direction you are going. 

9. I have never told anyone that the risk is worth it for them. I have said that when we allow immigration we automatically accept the inherent risks. I have never said to anyone from, say, Belgium that the risk of immigration is worth it for them personally, or their country. How could I even speak for anyone else? In fact, I have said a few times that in my opinion Belgium and Sweden has gone too far. That I wouldn't approve of that form of immigrations/integration into Norway. That is not a risk I personally would be happy to take. But I has also never voted for any politician who would allow as many immigrants as Belgium and Sweden has done. But again, I can't speak for anyone else nor have I. I have said, though, that I feel we are obligated to help, but that doesn't mean that EACH country must help EQUALLY much, and especially not allowing completely open borders. You have to allow for some nuances in this, even if I didn't spell it out to you ;).

10. Even in its figurative interpretation, "needing someone to shut up" suggests I have problems with what anybody here has stated and that I don't appreciate their thoughts. Which is not the case at all. ...Or it could just be a language problem.

11. This goes back to JeanGenie's original post which I and others believe was a villification of Muslims. It might be she only meant those Muslims she has talked to and if so it was a misunderstanding.

You also seem to think I have said you are villifying Muslims and feel slighted by this? After you explained that your definition of Muslims differs from the conventional definition, and basically only comprise jihadists, then I have had no objections to you villyfying "Muslims" any more. I have no love for jihadists or anyone with a literal interpretation of scripture. Any crass word I may have sent your way prior to that came from me thinking you actually condemned about 1 billion people who refer to themselves as Muslims based on what some extremists have done, if this still bothers you despite it being us talking about different things, then I apologize.

12. I have never claimed the net result of immigration for us (meaning the original population in a land that receives immigrants) is positive (in the short term). What I have said is that it is positive to the immigrants. Just read my posts, dammit

Again, we knew about the risk of this and we accepted those risks when we allowed immigration to happen. Whether we regret that now in hindsight depends upon exactly how the immigration has affected us. I have absolutely no problems with Belgians regretting their immigration policies (I probably would have if I as Belgian), or anyone else. As for Norway, I don't regret our policies, I think it works out okay althouh we have some problems, too.

I could spend much more time here giving you direct quotes to all of this. But I can't be bothered. You obviously turn a blind eye to everything I write that doesn't fit your agenda and twist and turn those things that are open for interpretation. It is obvious you are arguing against someone else than me.

Edited March 27, 2016 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

12 hours ago, Dan H. said:

Pappy's got a lot of good thoughts.

This particular issue feels so muddled up and complicated. I definitely feel that developed countries across the globe have a humanistic responsibility to help the people of undeveloped and war torn countries. 

But like Pappy said, allowing an unchecked stream of immigrants in, especially those who have (unfortunately) been overexposed to violence and radical idealism, will bring a host of social and economic issues, some of which could claim lives or muddle up the cultural structure of said developed nations. 

Not sure really if the price tag is worth it, in the case of mass immigration. 

I agree with all this. And no one here is arguing for an "unchecked stearm of immigrants", are there? Pappy seem to think I am, though

 

 

[SoulMonster]

15 hours ago, MB. said:

Ofcourse they haven't been dragged down to Hades Pappy, cause they do this:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/01/20/norway-sends-syrian-refugees-back-to-russia/

Yes, like about every country in Europe we have quotas on how many we accept and return those that exceed those quotas or aren't admittable, back to the country form where they came (many of the immigrants come via Russia). This allows us to help people without ending up as Belgium ;). Again, I wish we would help more, but this is the decision we have decided upon.

As for Pappy's comment that I have said that everybody else must "help more". That is yet another thing I have never said but that I think he wants me to have said. It is more convenient for him, I am sure. What I have said is that I think we have an obligation to help but beyond that I have only critized Norway (and possibly a few Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia) from helping too little. Quite contrary, I have numerous times pointed out that maybe some countries are trying to help too many (i.e. Sweden and Belgium).

[Len Cnut]

Jean Genie is a bloke

[PappyTron]

7 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, like about every country in Europe we have quotas on how many we accept and return those that exceed those quotas or aren't admittable, back to the country form where they came (many of the immigrants come via Russia). This allows us to help people without ending up as Belgium ;). Again, I wish we would help more, but this is the decision we have decided upon.

As for Pappy's comment that I have said that everybody else must "help more". That is yet another thing I have never said but that I think he wants me to have said. It is more convenient for him, I am sure. What I have said is that I think we have an obligation to help but beyond that I have only critized Norway (and possibly a few Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia) from helping too little. Quite contrary, I have numerous times pointed out that maybe some countries are trying to help too many (i.e. Sweden and Belgium).

 

If one is helping too little and is being criticised for it, and forgive me for asking this because my English isn't so good, is that not the same as stating that we need to help more? I mean "we" gets used for multiple different uses here, and gets switched around when convenient, but "we" = "society", collectively, because you keep saying things like "We caused the problems that they are running away from", which is clearly Europe as a whole. If you are only talking about Norway, then why are you telling Lio that the attack on her country this week is her own fault and that "we" must all learn from Belgium's mistakes in order to help better in future?

Honestly, the above is like the time Rick James told an interviewer that he'd never jumped on Eddie Murphy's couch before proudly saying that he jumped on Eddie Murphy's couch two seconds later, all in the same sentence. Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

[AdriftatSea]

Question - Why are all the able bodied men leaving their war torn countries? There are so very many fleeing, surely enough to form a great army. Why don't they stay there and fight to take it back?  Is this too simple of a question to ask? 

[Georgy Zhukov]

Because they do not want to leave their families?

[MB.]

31 minutes ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

Because they do not want to leave their families?

Lol, are you even following the whole refugee thing? They do leave their faimilies, only not to fight but to flee. Most refugees are young men. Not blaming them, it's not a save trip going over the water and all. They hope to bring over the family as soon as possible.  

But to answer Adriftatsea, like I said most are not fleeing from IS alone, most are also fleeing Assad. They don't want to fight his war and they don't want to join IS.

Edited March 27, 2016 by MB.