Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,091
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 at 04:19:50 pm EDT (Viewed 13 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 at 11:58:23 am EDT (Viewed 147 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    If your country is at war, you don't leave your wife and children behind and escape to a safer country to find a job. You get your family out if they are in danger. You don't leave them behind. Your answer only applies to economic immigration, not political. Big difference.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:

                    And yet this is what these men are doing. Women are 2nd class citizens and not as important. Also a factor that being physically stronger the men are likely more capable of making it.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      But yes this is a problem with just accepting any refugees that show up...it's usually young men and ones with very strong ideologies about how things should be and not always adapting to their new location...let alone leaving the women and children behind.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  Which is another reason to accept women and kids who can adapt better.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    The Polish president got critisied when he suggested that male Syrian refugees be trained militarily in Europe to go back to Syria to take back their country. If they are young and able of course.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                It goes further than just criticism. Poland and Hungary are being threatened by the EU for not taking in Syrian migrants. When countries joined the EU, their understanding of free movement of people within the EU did not include what Angela Merkel and others have made of it.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  There is no doubt that not every one of these migrants is a terrorist, or that not every one will cause harm to the people of their host country. And anyone who has a heart, their heart must break for the tragedy we are witnessing today. But (you knew that was coming), the solution to the problems in that region is not the mass immigration of millions of people into Europe. We've seen the problems in Sweden. There is not the effort of integration that is required to make the policy successful. The stories of attacks all across Europe are far too frequent. Too frequent of course, except in Poland.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    By refusing to take part in allowing the massive influx of refuges into Poland, Polish politicians have saved the lives of their citizens. This sounds very cold, I know. But leaving feelings behind for a minute, examining only facts....why is it that Poland does not have the terrorist attacks we see in England, France, Belgium, and Sweden? Why is it that Tokyo, with far greater population does not have these attacks? There is only one answer....they have not taken in Syrian refuges.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      The choice is clear. A country can choose to keep it's own people safe, and allow others far away to suffer and die. Or it can help people from far away lands, and different cultures (a very noble act), but while doing so accept their 8 year old daughters are at risk for being blown up by a shrapnel bomb if they go to a concert.

                      Quote:

                        Quote:
                        I don't see a third choice unfortunately. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. The idea of allowing women and children is very compassionate. But ideas have to worked into policy, which is not always easy. For example, how will these women and children support themselves in a land where they don't know the language? This is a horrible, horrible tragedy without question. I don't think anyone can be certain of the solution. But I don't think spreading terrorism to more parts or Europe is part of that solution.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              With respect, this is an awful black and white view that sort of throws out the whole concept of refugees outright. It is pretty much saying die in your own country. Do not bother us.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            It's not as you say, "Do not bother us". Rather it's: do not rape us, do not stab us, do not blow up our children. If the trend was that countries with these migrants has no ill effects, then there would be no issue. We all have human feelings and compassion for others. But the picture really is black and white. Poland does not have the same terrorist problems England, France, Belgium and Sweden are having. I'm going to ask you a direct question, and I'm looking for a direct answer. What other reason is there for that other than Poland having fewer muslims, and not accepting refuges?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I would need to see numbers. As you have not really provided any.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Come on! You need to see numbers? You seem well informed a good number of topics. I find it hard to believe you are completely unaware of the recent terrorist attacks in England, France, Belgium and Sweden. I also find it hard to believe that you need to see numbers in order to understand that similar attacks have not been as frequent in Poland.



    Quote:
    Didn't say I was not, however you lay out various claims up there that are not totally related to terrorists attacks.



    Quote:
    I also will say the reason I ask for some material is because your point is not entirely clear. I would need to check but there are x events associated with terrorism. This varies a fair bit but they are usually not that common. One would not expect them to occur everywhere.



    Quote:
    From an impact scale, one would be more likely to focus on a major city that is well known like London or Paris. They are also fairly populated. Many such cities in Europe but to focus on a major area seems like a way.



    Quote:
    Your description of various events at the start of that paragraph seem to refer to crimes. Which, have gone up with additional people. But crimes committed by refugees are not in and of themselves terrorism.


You are correct. I should not have included rapes in my comment above. The rapes are not part or terrorist acts (at least not the ones in Europe within scope of this conversation).

But my point about terrorist acts stands. Poland has not had the number of terrorist acts and does not have as many suspected jihadis living within their borders. Even if you want to adjust for population size, what's happening in European countries who have taken in migrants is not happening in Poland. Why would the Polish people, or Polish politicians want to open themselves up to what they see happening elsewhere?

Or more to the point....why should they be forced to take in migrants by the EU if it is against how the people of Poland want to run their country?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You're avoiding having to answer the question. So I'll answer it for you. The only reason Poland does not have the same level of terrorist attacks is because they have fewer muslims, and they have not accepted refuges. It sounds cold. It sounds mean. But it is true.



    Quote:
    One could take that view. One could obviously take the more logical view that if somebody were to have impact on a larger stage than one should focus on majorish players on the world stage.



    Quote:
    With no disrespect to Poland, they really are not. Britain, France and Germany are. It seems unlikely to me that any foreign policy would prevent 100% of everything. As you seem to be implying. Particularly with a subject like this.


I never said policy could prevent 100% of everything, nor have I implied that. I am saying that Poland has dramatically fewer terrorist attacks than the other European nations who are taking in migrants. While maybe not being 100% of the reason, their refusal to accept migrants is certainly a large part of it.

Are you saying it has no effect at all? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it's an honest question, looking for an honest answer. Do you see no connection at all between refusing refuges and lower acts of terror?

Regarding Poland's standing on the world stage...I think you are underestimating Poland as a US ally. But even so, attacks are not always planned for large cities or more powerful countries. There have been terrorist attacks in Bulgaria and Denmark, which I would say are not usually associated with France, Germany and Great Britain in terms of power and influence.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The issue is, human perception and reporting can blow these things out of hand.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What is blown out of hand precisely? Terrorist attacks? There is no way you can say that the murder of children in Manchester was just blown out of hand by human perception. There is no way. So what is blown out of hand by perception and reporting? The slitting of a priest's throat in the middle of mass in France?



    Quote:
    You are usually at least seemingly reasonable. I am not sure if you are trying to drag this into inflammatory grounds but so be it.


I'm not trying to drag this to inflammatory grounds, and I apologize if I have gone too far. But I honestly see this as a simple choice. If western countries continue to allow in millions of migrants, they are deciding to help others from far away lands (again, a noble an honorable goal) but with that comes the known risk to our children and loved ones. Nations who have opened their arms to migrants are flooded with people who don't understand western values and have no desire to assimilate. We have seen it occur over and over. Except in Poland.


    Quote:
    That is not what I meant. The crimes and acts themselves are horrible. That said, we are often lead to believe that terrorists attacks are happening every day and hurting more than anything else when that is not the case.


I disagree that we are lead to believe they happen every day. But they certainly happen too often. In Brussels on June 20th police thankfully caught four men in a failed nail bombing attempt at a rail station. On the 19th a suicide bomber with a car full of weapons and a gas bomb rammed a police car in Paris. We rarely hear of the failed attempts. The danger is real even if it is not every day.


    Quote:
    That does not diminish the crimes themselves, those doing them should be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes. However, responding in fear and locking out people is pretty much giving in to the fear that is the goal of this sort of thing in the first place.


I believe you are very wrong in thinking the goal is to have us give in to fear. Their goal is to kill people, and to get us to bend to their way of life. They don't care if we're afraid or not, as long as they can spread their ideology.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      If anything these attacks are under-reported. Politicians and police tried famously to hide the sexual assaults in Cologne. The AP has hidden the fact that an attacker yelled "allahu akbar" before he killed people.



    Quote:
    It depends. I am sure that there are crimes that are meant as acts of terror that are not reported. But if I am to assume the media in the EU is similar to that in the US. And the people, or at least a portion of the population react the same, than many people will think that given acts are more dire than they are. To the exclusion of others that are under reported.



    Quote:
    It is possible, but it is hardly like what happened in Cologne was covered up. It sparked a fair bit of outcry. From initial misreports to everything else afterwards.


No, it wasn't covered up, only because people spoke out against the wishes of the authorities. But there was certainly an attempt to cover it up until news of it got out. Many politicians, and many in the media don't want to report acts of terror, or crimes in general, by muslims. Take the truly horrible child rapes in Rotherham as an example. At least 1,400 children were involved in a child rape ring, some as young as 11. The children were unimaginably abused in sickening ways. The local politicians and police tried to cover it up because they didn't want to appear "islamophobic". In some cases, the children were told not to tell anyone the characteristics of the attackers in the gang rapes.


    Quote:
    What attacker yelled that. At Cologne there were many perpetrators. And each one of them should be punished to the full extent of the law. And all should be done to prevent that from happening again.


Sorry for not being clear. I was referencing a different incident here. One in the US. My point being that many in the media do not want to portray muslims in a bad light, and so acts of terror are under-reported, as opposed to your contention that reporting is blown out of hand.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not arguing that an increase in population will not result in a increase in crime. It will, logically it will.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm not sure if you are purposefully dodging the issue of terrorism, or if you really equate crime with terrorist acts. They are separate things. An increase in population will usually have an increase in crime. However, an increase in population does not usually bring an increase in terrorism. Tokyo is far more populous than London or France, yet Tokyo doesn't have the same terrorist attacks. I'll let you guess what Tokyo has in common with Poland.



    Quote:
    You really do have tunnel vision on this issue. You are conflating the two at various times here. Or maybe I am misunderstanding. Terrorism is a criminal act that seeks to change political, societal etc change. Right? Or at least that is a summation of what I have heard.


Yes, terrorism is a criminal act. But it's a specific kind of crime. I don't think it is useful to hide stats of terrorist acts in with other types of crime and pretend a rise in shoplifting is equatable. Terrorism can be discussed separately, and it's causes are not the same as other criminal acts.


    Quote:
    I am not dodging it but you are not giving me much to work with either. I asked you for some supporting information to see. So that I would not have to go dig it up.


I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what it is you need supporting evidence of. Do you need me to provide links of reports of terrorist acts in England and France? If that's the case, I will do so. Are you looking for evidence of absence of terrorist acts in Poland or Tokyo. I'm sure you're aware of the difficulty in
providing evidence of absence.


    Quote:
    You keep providing anecdotes.


I am providing hard, factual examples to support my position. I wouldn't call them anecdotes.


    Quote:
    Each crime is serious and should be taken seriously. But does the action of a few necessarily doom millions more or create even more fighters for those being fought?


Yes, maybe the actions of a few do doom millions when the stake of millions of others are put at risk. Look at the state Sweden is in. They cannot find a contractor willing to build a new police station in Rinkeby because conditions are too unsafe. Swedish women in some neighborhoods wear heard scarves out of fear. And post delivery has been halted for some because it is too dangerous for the post delivery man to go there.

So, yes, the actions of a few do doom millions when there are millions of others at stake.


    Quote:
    Also, your example at the end there is pretty awful from a logical point of view. As you are mixing several unrelated factors.



    Quote:
    1. Japan is not near the hotbed of various civil wars and conflicts driving people to nearby countries.


England, Sweden, and Brussels are not near the hotbed of civil wars either. Geographic proximity is not an issue here.


    Quote:
    2. Japan is a fairly homogeneous society without the same histories as the EU, the US or whatever.


So was Sweden before they accepted migrants. Being fairly homogeneous does not separate Japan from examples in Europe.


    Quote:
    3. Japan is an island, meaning an increased degree of geographical separation.


England is also an island. That has not prevented terrorist attacks.


    Quote:
    4. Given that Tokyo is not experiencing the same issues as the EU it is a very poor city to compare to. And given the other factors even worse.


Given that Tokyo is not experiencing the same issues as the EU it is the perfect example. Looking above at what you thought were factors that made Japan different, in fact, it shared those qualities with some European nations. The only true difference is Japan's lack of muslims and migrants.


    Quote:
    5. One can compare different areas in Europe. As in principal the EU is facing the issue but each country has agreed to take more or less of a role in the whole thing.


Except Poland, which has not had the same problems. That being my point.


    Quote:
    6. You assume that for the purposes of impact targets that Poland is equal to other countries in the EU. Which is not really the case. Not to mention many seek to punish countries involved in the ME. Poland has minimal footprint and taken few actions there.


As I provided above action in the middle east has not been a factor regarding where terrorists strike. Belgium, Denmark and Sweden for example have not had large footprints in the middle east. So again...the only difference we're left with is that Poland has fewer muslims and has not accepted migrants.


    Quote:
    7. You disregard all of this and attach it to one policy alone in isolation. That alone seems highly flawed.


I think above I shown that what you thought were differences really weren't. We have seen jihadi attacks in countries that were once homogeneous, that is an island, that have not had a large footprint in the middle east, and that are not geographically close to civil wars. The only difference left is lack of muslims and migrants.


    Quote:
    I just find it to be inappropriate to conflate so many strings and then try to use it as a reason or logic behind this view. I mean if we are making rhetorical points. Why would a terrorists see New York as a better target than Wyoming?



    Quote:
    Of course Poland has more people in its largest city than there are in Wyoming, but it is a better consideration point.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But you are making a pretty bold and brash claim here. I think one needs to substantiate that sort of thing.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What do I need to substantiate? That countries which have taken in muslim migrants have problems with muslim terrorism which Poland and Tokyo do not have? That's a fact. The Polish know it, the Hungarians know it, and the Japanese know it.



    Quote:
    Your claims. Otherwise you are making decision on gut fear. That is not a reason to make national policy. Particularly for the EU, that has always been more open about that sort of thing. Always a bit resistant too but every country is.



    Quote:
    Why do you keep comparing Japan to countries in the EU? It is a poor poor comparison. Japan hardly has the history or culture of accepting outsiders to the extent of most European countries.


You raised the issue that terrorists will attack larger cities with more people as your belief as to why Polish cities have not seen the types of attacks as London or Paris. I introduced Tokyo because it has a much larger population that London and Paris. My point being jihadis don't simply travel to the largest cities. Many times they attack where they live, and places they are familiar with. So (to me anyway) this backs up my belief that Poland's refusal to accept migrants has helped keep it safe.


    Quote:
    I just disagree with your premise without solid data or information. Or at least remain highly skeptical. Doesn't it seem like the goal of the terrorist organizations would be to cause policy like this. Show the people fleeing and potentially those on the fence that these folks do not care for any of you at all?


I'm honestly not trying to be difficult or stubborn here...but I don't understand what solid data you are looking for.

I'm not following the second part of your statement directly above. Terrorist organizations, like ISIS, want countries around the globe to accept migrants. They have stated as such. We know they want to send jihadis into the migrant flow to spread their ideology and terrorist acts around the globe.


    Quote:
    That is what it is saying at the country level. And that speaks volumes and does little to help any cause anywhere.



    Quote:
    So, I ask you for information on the matter. Or at least some of the things you are referring to for some framework of understanding.



    Quote:
    For instance there are several reports that reach the conclusion that is contrary to yours. At least with regards to crime.



    Quote:
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28732/


I simply don't have time to read this 36 page document. But if I'm looking at the text of the initial page correctly, this study does not include migrants from the same countries as we're currently discussing. I have no issue with accepting migrants or immigrants. My issue is only with the risk of jihadis in the current migrants from Syria and surrounding area.


    Quote:
    If the vast majority of people are not committing criminal acts than why should they be punished for the actions of a few, trying to affect the many?


Yes, when as many lives are at stake as we are seeing in the host countries.


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        On one hand you are saying they are not all to blame and then on the other hand your view is they should be left to whatever fate they may.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What I am saying is that it is a terrible tragedy, and many innocent people are suffering. But the solution isn't to burn down Europe.



    Quote:
    Yet the the only solutions on the dichotomy you lay out are let them in or not. No area in the middle. Because you think that a solution is 100% effective. NOTHING is 100% effective. Some things are just more than others. Absolute claims make me nervous as a point of logic.


I've never said anything is 100% effective. I'm making the case that Poland's refusal to accept migrants has had a large connection to keeping it safe from jihadis. It may not be 100% effective, but it is a large factor.


    Quote:
    The idea that Europe should throw away who they are because of some doing horrible things does seem to be outright giving in and sending even more good people to their death.



    Quote:
    What I want is some information relating numbers that you are talking about and some context to understand them in. As there are a load of assumptions here. Too many, in my view, to base national policy on.


Not trying to be stubborn...but I honestly am not sure what numbers you want to see. England, France, Belgium, and Sweden have all seen terrorist attacks or unrest from migrant neighborhoods. Poland has not seen these things. What numbers do you need?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Many of these attacks are being carried out by citizens that have been radicalized.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Radicalized by who? The radicals being let into Europe now possibly? It's not that normal Brits spontaneously combust into radical jihadis.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          No, but if you knew a fair bit on this subject you would know what I am referring.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        If you want to have a conversation with someone...even a heated discussion, you don't claim that they don't even have a fair bit of knowledge on the subject. We disagree strongly on this subject, but I haven't insulted your knowledge.



    Quote:
    You already did call me out on the matter at the start. Also the nature of your phrasing implies my understanding is bordering on zero.


Quite the opposite. My quote here was honest and genuine. I know you are knowledgeable on many topics. I was not insulting your knowledge at all. Which is why I truly don't understand what numbers you are requesting related to terrorist attacks in some nations with well known attacks, but not as many in Poland.


    Quote:
    "Come on! You need to see numbers? You seem well informed a good number of topics. I find it hard to believe you are completely unaware of the recent terrorist attacks in England, France, Belgium and Sweden. I also find it hard to believe that you need to see numbers in order to understand that similar attacks have not been as frequent in Poland."

    You do not once consider as part of your answer the use of various terrorist groups to use social media in recruiting and radicalizing individuals. I hope that you are, but your response made it unclear.



    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:
        Many of the most publicized acts of terror have been committed by European citizens that have traveled out of country and come back. They have ties with already known groups and have been red flagged. For whatever reason they were not followed up on well.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Yes! They have traveled out of the country, in some cases to the very countries we're arguing about letting migrants in from. If you agree that people who travel to those countries become radicalized, then why do you not see a problem letting millions of people from those countries into Europe?



    Quote:
    Because I am not making the assumption that you are. They were already radicalized apparently and traveled to areas. I do not know if it was all of them but there is at least one or two clear examples of that.



    Quote:
    Your assumption is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. At least that is my reading of it. There are people that are radicalized therefore most are radicalized. Some are, most are not.


I agree that some are, most are not. Let me try to exlain again...It was you who brought up the idea to use visits to certain countries as a reason to suspect citizens of European countries of being radicalized. That being the case, we agree that some in those countries pose a treat either because they are radicalizing people, or because they are providing assistance to those already radicalized. If we agree on that, I'm saying, the danger is known, so I agree that the Polish should allowed to choose not to allow migrants from those countries if that's their wish. Let other countries continue to do so. Let's watch and compare the effects as the years go by.


    Quote:
    Your premise is that because some minority are than all should be just cast out or turned away. My assumption is to punish the guilty, improve screening to the best degree possible, try and monitor threats to the best ability possible and work to help migrants feel welcome. The later is a two way street, but information is king in these situations. And people are more likely to help if they feel like they belong.


My premise is that there is a clear danger to citizens of the host countries. A large enough danger to think twice about allowing migrants in. My premise is that Poland should be able to decide for itself and not be bullied by the EU.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      To me, that should be the light-bulb coming on! People from those countries radicalize others who travel there, so let's not let millions of them into Europe. That's the whole argument right there!



    Quote:
    I know you have a decent ability to reason through things. Why do you assume that order. In many of the cases they were already recruited and have drunk the kool aide before the visit. They did not go on vacation and come back radicalized.



    Quote:
    At least from the reports I have heard on the matter.


Even if the traveler is radicalized beforehand, it doesn't matter. It's evidence that those countries are supporting radical islamists either through providing training, funds, weapons or connections.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And yes they do. People everywhere do. I am not sure if you follow the news about ISIS and other groups recruiting on twitter and such. Not all of them do anything, but they have sympathies there.

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              One could argue the governments should do more to monitor those individuals, particularly if they recently traveled to chaotic areas.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Yes, one could argue that. Many do. However the numbers have become overwhelming. Using England as an example, there are over 20,000 people on their list of individuals who they would like to keep track of. But there just isn't the manpower, or funding to do so. One of the recent attackers was even featured in a documentary about known jihadis living in England. But the resources aren't there to track all these people. The term "lone wolf" has now morphed into "known wolf".

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Which I think is a problem, but what you are proposing would also take considerable resources on the countries bordering the Mediterranean. Already cash and debt strapped countries that would be forced to pay a burden.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Maybe I am. It's a country's responsibility to secure its borders. Or all EU nations can assist with the costs, or the UN can assist. A good start would be turning off the blinking neon welcome sign. Stop advertising benefits, and change the policy for picking up migrants at sea. Rather than picking them up at sea and bringing them to Europe, escort them back to where they came from.



    Quote:
    What does secure borders mean? It is not realistic to stop all of this. People would still get in. They always do. It is better to be in control than start up unknown entrance channels.



    Quote:
    That aside, most EU countries now are unwilling to give much support to the countries that were receiving the migrants initially. I see no reason why they would start. Many countries would act as free loaders or put in too little to matter.



    Quote:
    Depending on the numbers it would also be costly to take them back. Pending the numbers.



    Quote:
    I am not sure what is meant by the neon welcome sign but Europe is a nice region. It is going to always look better than a war torn mess of an area or neighbors that may not accept you either, pending their own governments and issues.



    Quote:
    That is to say nothing of morality of the situation. I know practicality has to factor in. Countries have x resources and so on, but at the same time turning people back to die without even working at some sort of international solution is pretty bad.



    Quote:
    The whole turning a blind eye or turning people away is almost as bad as signing the death warrant as a region.


To continue along the current path is signing a death warrant for Europe.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You asked for a policy solution. If these people are flagged and there are too many than an evaluation of the process should occur and more recourse into monitoring and following up where possible. That seems more reasonable to me than letting millions die.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The costs are simply too high. Seven people are needed for around the clock monitoring of each single suspect. That's a minimum of 140,000 people just for watching people. The costs of that, and the logistics of it all are overwhelming. I agree that it would be nice to do, but the resources don't exist. I don't have the numbers handy, but I believe only the 500 deemed most threatening have 24 hour surviellance.



    Quote:
    But the costs of keeping everybody out despite their frantic attempts to flee in would be free?



    Quote:
    I see no reason to not increase resources. The monitoring of people and acting on those is vastly underappreciated. It is like vaccination. People do not appreciate the effects because it is preventative.



    Quote:
    I am not convinced that preventing immigration in would decrease the attacks being seen. Especially if they are carried out, in part, by radicalized citizens. It would merely be turning more people away to die or radicalize by necessity. You are reading the cost benefit for one way but utterly ignoring the other.


Preventing the inflow of migrants prevents attacks because you have less jihadis coming into a given country. Poland has proven this. We know a certain percentage have radical beliefs, and we know ISIS's plan is to slip their soldiers into the mix.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          In the US there are numerous cases of police not being allowed to monitor mosques where it is believed people are being radicalized.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          You would need to give me examples. Because I find this a bit hard to believe. My quick google research only comes up with the NYPD monitoring mosques. Not avoiding them. And it looks like it was shut down for civil rights concerns.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The civil rights concerns were simply that it targeted muslims. Yes, when hoping to monitor muslim terrorists, primarily muslims will be monitored. That is a problem to some, including NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio.



    Quote:
    It is a problem if there is not cause to look at those specific Muslims. Just a blanket looking at Muslims in general does not really warrant in much. The massive data collection the US did for quite a long time, and may still do to some extent, produced a ton of data that was hard to go through. And in most reports the return on them was low.



    Quote:
    If there is reason to believe that a given area or group is planning something than there is cause to investigate it. A warrant could even be obtained but not entirely needed if it appears imminent. It is a major problem in terms of the Constitution to assume guilt without cause.



    Quote:
    For instance, if associates of a known terror group were at a given area than they should be monitored. Just blanket monitoring people going into one is a violation of their civil rights. It is discrimination unless there is a valid reason to look.



    Quote:
    All of that seems pretty cut and dry to me.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I see many that would be considered very critical of Muslims desiring to monitor all mosques.

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Monitoring all the possible terrorists has become impossible.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            So, nobody should try then? Seems increasing resources would be a good idea if you ask me. More logical, moral and humanitarian than denying human dignity to people.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I never said we shouldn't try. The authorities do try. They focus on the ones believed to present the biggest threat. But it's like a sieve, too many holes for the water to get through.



    Quote:
    Assuming guilt is the answer then? Seems like intelligence and punishment would be the best tools to use. I still fail to see how keep them out will be useful for self radicalized citizens of a given country.


Keeping out migrants may not be useful in preventing self radicalized citizens. But it certainly helps prevent more radicals entering the country. But again you bring up the self radicals as a rational for allowing in migrants. Already having x amount of problems doesn't justify bringing in an additional y amount of more problems.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The US is also not Europe. There are numerous differences. One being that we are not by these countries and surrounded by oceans. It is not apples to apples.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Sentiments in the US were similar during the migration from Central America a few years ago. The numbers were smaller but the same general claims were made. There was never too much on them, but some would have been fine to return the children to war zones.

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:
                It just seems this assumption is too far one way. One side would be let them all in and the other would be let nobody in. Seems to me that the argument between safety and security are linked far to often. And the results are still not a guarantee when radicalization occurs at home.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                The idea that normal, proud Frenchmen spontaneously become radicals needs to be explained to me better. Could allowing radicals into the country from the middle east play a part in that redicalization?

            Quote:

              Quote:
              What is a normal Frenchmen?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        A mime wearing a beret, sitting in an outdoor cafe, eating a baguette.



    Quote:
    You can be goofy if you want but it is a serious point. Who is us and them and where does that line start or stop.


Tough room...


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        How does a normal guy commit any crime? They get something in there head and act on it for some reason.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          You can try and debate the point if you want, but the people committing many of the acts of terror in Europe are not refugees. They are EU citizens.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Yes, some are muslim citizens. And since they are citizens, they have every right to be in their home county. However, there is no right to live in a foreign county simply because you want to. And the fact that some citizens may be jihadis, does not justify bringing in more jihadis. The cases of "home grown terror" are frequently used to justify allowing in more migrants. But it's a false argument. Many time the home grown are only first generation born. Their parents arrived to Europe with their radical views intact, and although they may not have committed acts of terrorism, they spread their radical views to their children. Or those who have recently entered the country radicalize citizens in mosques. To say some attackers have been home grown, in no way justifies bringing in more migrants.



    Quote:
    Do you have evidence that is the case from the parents? Or is it a youth getting angry and finding people that agree and move on from there. I am sure the parents have their bias. Wherever they would come from. But so do people from anywhere. When you are from war torn regions I imagine those can burn hot. Does not mean they always cause issues but can.


Yes, I have evidence. The father of Omar Mateen, the Orlando nightclub shooter is a perfect example. He supports the Taliban and clearly has radical views. Although he did not commit crimes, he passed on some of his radical beliefs to his son.


    Quote:
    It is strange to me that you are willing to accept some terrorism so long as it is from the home front but willing to cast many more aside to die or have other things happen.


I am not willing to accept it. That's a silly statement. But as citizens, nothing can be done until they commit a criminal act. Having a set amount of local problems a country is forced to deal with does not justify bringing in more problems. You still haven't explained how the existence of home grown radicals means countries must accept migrants. Draw the connecting dots on that one for me. I'm not seeing it.


    Quote:
    It is YOUR justification for keeping them out. That they are terrorists. If there are terrorists or those who can become them already in the various countries than you already accept that there are going to be some terror attacks. I am all for reducing those, but in other places your thought process is that keeping people out will prevent terrorism, I point out that it will not.


Keeping radicals out will prevent terrorist attacks. We know certain amount of people bring radical beliefs with them, and we know of ISIS's plan to slip their soldiers into the flow of migrants.


    Quote:
    You sort of agree and then say that is ok. Unless I am missing your point. That very much hurts the overall point of what you are getting at various points in this post.



    Quote:
    "However, there is no right to live in a foreign county simply because you want to."



    Quote:
    Sure, but not sure that most of them are going there for vacation and picnics. I think there is something to be said about economic immigration. Traveling for a better life (which is still admiral in its own way) vs fleeing from danger. Countries get to define that but numerous things do give refugees rights.



    Quote:
    http://www.ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/



    Quote:
    Of course, the international community has a bad track record on this sort of thing for various reasons, but it is there.


As pointed out by Paladin in the original post of this thread, most of the migrants are grown men, not the women and children that politicians like to tell us about. Many are in fact economic migrants.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        All you need is one person that feels that they do not belong for whatever reason or is attracted to a certain line of thought and there you go. It does not take much at all. There are numerous studies on the matter. I do not even follow them closely but am aware that they exist.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Just any random person? Anyone at all? How come we don't see as many of these random people in Poland or Japan?



    Quote:
    Japan is irrelevant to this. I pointed out above. Apples and oranges and assuming that the results are directly comparable is not logically consistent. IMO.


Japan is highly relevant when comparing the number of terrorist attacks between countries which have accepted migrants, and those who have not accepted migrants. It was your assertion that cities in Poland did not have attacks because they were less populous than London or Paris. Tokyo has a greater population than either London or Paris. It is an island country like England, and it is homogeneous as Sweden was before it accepted migrants. The only difference is lack of muslims, and refusal to accept migrants.


    Quote:
    I also gave reasons for Poland. There are also far fewer populated areas or major symbols in Poland compared to places like Britain or Paris.


It is wrong to point to only larger populated areas or major symbols being attacked. Bulgarian cities are less populated and are not major symbols, yet there have been attacks there. So again...the only thing that separates Poland from countries that have seen jihadi attacks is a lack of muslims, and refusal to allow migrants.


    Quote:
    The main point of terrorism, as horrible as it is, is to get noticed. That is easier in some places than others. It would also need to consider the population, history and so on and so forth to go into all of it.


I agree that a point is to get noticed. But I don't see how you can deny a lack of jihadis living in a country is a major factor. Poland should be to decide for itself whether or not to accept migrants.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Generally, they are people that do not feel like they belong. If that is on them or partly on the country or region they are in is more up for debate. They perceive they are isolated. And not everybody in those conditions ends up a terrorist.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The argument "not everybody ends up a terrorist" carries no weight for me. Sure, it's not all migrants. But it's enough. How many children need to be blown up? How many husbands and wives need to lose a spouse? How many rapes need to occur? How many before the amount that "isn't everybody" becomes enough?



    Quote:
    While I see the point, it is also reacting purely by emotion and lashing out at those who did nothing. It is fine that it does not carry weight. That does not make it a valid point.



    Quote:
    What is enough? For some people 1 migrant is too many. For others it is a larger number. I could see this same argument be applied to not terrorism but to crime in general. Which you are conflating with a bit. I agree that it gets tricky.



    Quote:
    To some degree it is saying that crimes committed by outsiders are worse than those committed by citizens. It also underscores a general fear. In the US studies found that people had more to fear from say hard right militia groups than Islamic terrorists. Not zero, but there. People still are by far more afraid of the outsiders. It is our nature. I am sure that Europe has a fair share of those too.


You are wrong that I am saying crimes committed by outsiders are worse than crimes committed by citizens. What I am saying is that crimes committed by citizens are harder to prevent. Crimes committed by migrants are 100% preventable if they are not allowed in. A crime by a migrant is not worse than a crime committed by a citizen, but it is more preventable. Every terrorist act that kills or wounds someone, or any sexual assault by a migrant is 100% preventable if they are not there.


    Quote:
    I am not diminishing the crimes or losses of the people. I just do not think your course of action does little to address the issue. Would throwing out or turning away however many to stop one attack worth it. One one hand it is preserving life. But at the cost of many others. And there is no promise that it would actually stop much of anything.



    Quote:
    Is it simply a matter of some lives being worth more than others? That starts to get scary in my view. There is something to be said about looking after your own people first but it is a very fine line that takes dark turns quick in the right environments.


A government's most important obligation is to keep it's own people safe. If Polish people do not want to let in migrants because migrants from a certain area have caused problems in other countries, then I say the Polish should be allowed to make that choice without the EU trying to strong-arm them to alter their decision.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And before you misconstrue me, I am not saying that all terrorist acts or crimes are only being performed by citizens. I do not know that to be the case. Only it is easier for citizens to travel in the EU country to country than migrants.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Crime rates are up in many places too. But not all crimes are terrorism. And a large increase in population would result in some increase in crime. It is the nature of humanity. A few of the numbers I have seen show in terms of proportions that they are not acting any worse than general occupants in terms of most crimes.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Copied from above - I'm not sure if you are purposefully dodging the issue of terrorism, or if you really equate crime with terrorist acts. They are separate things. An increase in population will usually have an increase in crime. However, an increase in population does not usually bring an increase in terrorism. Tokyo is far more populous than London or France, yet Tokyo doesn't have the same terrorist attacks. I'll let you guess what Tokyo has in common with Poland.



    Quote:
    I'll let you refer back to what I typed further up.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I would also argue that there is a "simple" solution to this. The fighting in Syria and surrounding areas needs to be stopped. It is a mess and nobody has wanted to make any hard decisions, outside of Russia I guess, but the best way to stop the flow and return people would be give them a safe place to go back to and rebuild.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            "The fighting needs to be stopped" is by no means a simple solution. How does the fighting stop? Will Assad stop fighting to maintain power? Will ISIS stop fighting to gain territory? I don't understand how the fighting just stops.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          It is a very simple conceptual solution. But it is not a simple solution in terms of carrying it out. Thus the quotations around it.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            ISIS will fight to take territory but they are and have been losing territory and not fighting much to retake it. They are largely setting up bombs to punish the forces taking ground back.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              So long as there are major unstable areas terrorism will be fueled. Conflicts will drive on and the immigration issues will continue. The cancer needs to be addressed or the symptoms continue. Simple as that.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You can't just say "simple as that". What does that mean, "the cancer needs to be addressed"? If the cancer is people with barbaric beliefs multiplying across Europe, how is that addressed by letting more in?



    Quote:
    If the core conflicts driving people out are not addressed than people will continue to seek refuge elsewhere. The migration crisis is a symptom of the events in nearby regions of the ME. You address it, at the core, by dealing with the crisis. I thought I was pretty clear about that. You are conflating issues.


You keep repeating that you would address the issue, or that fighting should stop. But I don't see any statements regarding how to address the core issue, or how fighting stops.


    Quote:
    Terrorism or hateful ideas will not die so long as people are around. The best you can do is monitor and try to address it where you can. Many countries have horrible leaders and are in cultures that may preach poor things.



    Quote:
    Your goal, is to stop people from coming in because you think it reduces terrorism. The way to stop the flow is for the people to have somewhere else to go.


But if they bring their barbaric ideology with them to their host countries, it doesn't reduce the problem, it spreads it.


    Quote:
    Also, the answer to the barbarism idea is also straightforward but would never take with everyone. Show them why you are better. There will always be bad people and people with toxic beliefs that may result in them hurting people. But if people are part of something and shown whatever they believed was incorrect than people do change. Even if they return home.


Sorry to be blunt, but this comes off as naive. Showing ISIS that we are better people is not going to make them see the light and convert into peaceful people. We cannot hug the problem until it hugs us back.


    Quote:
    That seems more humanitarian and high minded. Maybe not totally practical but it should be a primary goal. To give people an idea of what they were hearing there was wrong. So, if many return home they could make a difference there. The only way to fight ideas is with ideas and reality. Intolerance just drives more intolerance. It is the way of things.


I used to think that too. I used to think that only if those people in the middle east could live in a western country and see the joys and freedoms we have. I thought, then they would know there is no reason to hate us, no reason for terrorists act. But then I was smacked with the reality of September 11, 2001. At that time I learned that many terrorists do live in western countries for years, many are educated in western schools. The idea that they will see us as friends and neighbors is now very foolish to me. They want to destroy us because we do not worship Allah. That's it. No amount of kumbaya on our side is going to change that.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Again, is there an easy fix to it. No, there never really has been but it does not change the fact that it is easy for many countries to sew the seeds that lead to situations that gradually build to things. But it is harder to deal with the fall out.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I am also not entirely sure why you think it is not worth trying to sort that issue out but are ok with the concept of sending more people back. Where their choices are pretty much die, join the fighting and probably die or potentially become radicalized themselves because there is no other work.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You ask why I don't think it's worth sorting out? I do think it's worth sorting out. I just don't believe the sorting involves millions of migrants flowing into Europe.



    Quote:
    But it is ok to have many go back to their deaths or extreme suffering?


Yes, if the alternative is the collapse of Europe.


    Quote:
    I find black and white thinking on issues like this disturbing.


I find sometimes that hard answers are the only solutions to tough problems.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          That is not easy at all, but to my thoughts at least, saying nobody in defeats the purpose of what little international law on the subject I have heard about.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Look, all I can say in the end is that I am sympathetic towards the countries taking in so many people. That many people is a strain on economies and cultures. Cultural clashes fill human history and hardly ever go well in the best of times. Let alone under crisis.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            However, it is also clear that such events can also bring out the worst in people. It is a hard balance to strike, but IMO turning the desperate away undermines western values at the core.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        If the incoming migrants were accepting of western values, then I would agree. But the problems in Sweden prove otherwise.



    Quote:
    Based on? I have heard some of these and I feel you will respond with repeating some things without the full context. So, I would like to see something that proves my fears wrong and you correct.


Here is some evidence of unrest in Sweden.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/index.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10080320/Stockholm-riots-leave-Swedens-dreams-of-perfect-society-up-in-smoke.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.html

And there is much, much more all across Europe.


    Quote:
    http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/


There are lots of problems with this article. It states that the numbers are muddy because the definition of sexual assault has changed. Right there then whatever numbers it provides are meaningless.

You'll notice though, the story is from 2017, yet the most recent data regarding migrant crime is from 2005. That is because Swedish authorities stopped reporting on migrant crime 12 years ago. You will likely give the authorities the benefit of the doubt here, but I will submit that it was to hide the data from the people.

You will also note, the 2005 study compares absolute numbers regarding migrant crime vs. Swedish born crime. But since the Swedish born are such a larger percentage, comparing absolute numbers is meaningless (as they likely know), and it's crime "rates" must be compared.

The article confirms the existence of "carelessly called" no-go zones. This is significant because these no-go zones were previously denied. It claims the problems in these areas are complex and multifaceted. From a government that stopped reporting on migrant crime once the numbers got embarrassing, I suspect the problem is not as multifaceted as they claim.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        IMO, resources are better spent with increased surveillance.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        If Britain has over 20,000 people on it's list, how many must be across all of Europe? Hundreds of thousands? It's just not possible to put 24 hour surviellance on that many people. If it were, I would agree with you.



    Quote:
    Put it is possible to ensure nobody enters that is not supposed to with 100% accuracy.


Unfortunately not. But that doesn't mean an effort shouldn't be made to limit it as much as possible.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I do not think that a blanket assume they are all a threat is a good policy for a culture that prides itself on inclusion.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        There isn't a blanket assumption that all are a threat. But enough are a threat to cause a problem.



    Quote:
    Except that is exactly how it is coming off.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It is the sensitivity vs specificity problem. It is easiest to explain using a spider web example. If the threads are too close than you catch everything and waste time better served catching bugs. And too big and the bugs get through.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Everything needs to be done that can be done, but I do not see how a black and white view on this are all the options. As even that does not prevent all terrorism. Which examples of citizen involvement in these things demonstrates. We can pretend it does though.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I've never pretended anything involving the "home grown" issue. But repeating myself from above....saying we have legal citizens who may be terrorists does not provide a reason to let in migrants, some of which may be terrorists.



    Quote:
    I addressed this above. Your entire premise is that immigrants are bringing terrorism in. Shutting down the borders will stop the terrorism. I am pointing out that such an approach, even if it worked, would not solve the problem.


It's worked so far in Poland.


    Quote:
    Logic being, you are willing to accept a zero sum game for potentially radicalized outsiders but accept that terrorists acts may be performed by those inside a country with similar beliefs. To me, that does not follow.


I am not willing to accept terrorist acts by local citizens. Once again, crime from a nation's citizens cannot be 100% prevented. But terrorist acts from migrants can be 100% prevented if they are not allowed into the country. It's about limiting the treat.


    Quote:
    I believe your response will be that it is a reduction, which is fine, but do the scales balance knowing that however many thousands were sent back to die and nothing was done to actually stop the flow at the source? Should that simply be not anybodies problem?


Attempting to solve problems in the middle east has always been a disaster. I'm not saying we stop trying, but spreading people with barbaric ideology all throughout Europe is only going to make the issue worse. The problem will still exist in the middle east, and now we'll have similar issues around the globe.


    Quote:
    At various times it seems you think that a given approach will be a hundred percent effective. That is horribly mistaken. Thus your continued references to the poor example of Japan in particular but also of Poland.


I don't believe anything is 100% effective.

I still think Japan is a fine example.

And Poland is not simply an example, it was the main point of my initial post in this thread. Should Poland be able to decide for itself on the topic of allowing in migrants. I say yes. Do you agree, or do you think the EU should be able to bully Poland into policy it does not agree with? I know it's complex, I know there are other downstream impacts. But with all that in mind, I'm asking you a yes/no question: should Poland be allowed to decide for itself?




Posted with Google Chrome 59.0.3071.115 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2017 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2017 Powermad Software