Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,494
In Reply To
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 932
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 at 09:20:48 pm EDT (Viewed 231 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 at 10:36:06 am EDT (Viewed 207 times)



    Quote:

      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:

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



    Quote:
    Well I would say a certain percentage of crime is terrorist based and terrorism is in fact a crime itself. Though I will admit that's a little arguing of semantics.


I agree


    Quote:
    I think the focus of terrorism is as you say generally where the greatest impacts will be made. That's completely true...I also think its where there is some ambiguity about how the public will look at it. There are less likely to target a children's cancer clinic than a political establishment...they don't always admit it but they are trying to drum up support on some level all the time.



    Quote:
    That said...terrorism groups tend to try and infiltrate anywhere they can.


Yes


    Quote:
    1)Establish financial contacts and control
    2)Stir up emotional support if can
    3)Infiltrate the infrastructure
    4)Look for good targets...these can include works of art and culture that is not their own
    etc...



    Quote:
    Big targets are best but they will gladly chose smaller targets too if the bang for the buck has more value (risk vs reward etc...)


Sure, but they get less publicity.


    Quote:
    He does make a valid point though...IF crimes are also going up. Terrorist or not who cares? It's bad. Just because its not terrorist inspired doesn't make it any less terrible.


To my mind he is conflating the two. Crimes committed by immigrants is terrorism. That is not the case.

It can be a problem, but the issue is also assuming that crimes from immigrants or refugees is somehow worse. Taking in more people will lead to an increase in crime. But that is not a new observation nor changes the need to take in refugees because some act poorly.

Punishing all for the actions of a few is a way to justify nearly any sort of policing action.


    Quote:

      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:

        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:

          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.

          Quote:

            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:

              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:

                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.



    Quote:
    Russia sure always seems interested in Poland. I think you underestimate their impact a little. They are an extremely strong supporter of the USA and that by default makes them a target. They also one of the strongest European countries economically.


Not really. Being a supporter of the US in and of itself is not going to make one a strong target. In terms of PR. Britain and France are more involved in the middle east and have been pointed out as areas to focus on.

Maybe there is more to it, but that is generally what I hear when I listen to experts on the matter.

Economics in and of itself does not really affect being a target for terrorists attacks in and of itself.


    Quote:

      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:

        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.

        Quote:


          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.

          Quote:

            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.



    Quote:
    I sometimes think bad things have to happen to people before they can understand why others might react this way. Using an analogy...would you blame someone for putting locks on their doors if they had a breaking and entering occur within their house? And decided not to let anyone new in before they vetted them? I think the response is quite understandable...where the line is drawn and how is where I think the argument is coming from yes?


Except I never made the claim you are assuming I am. I never said that there should not be some sort of vetting process. I have an issue with keeping everybody out. As was proposed. I do not find it to be much of a response.

My thoughts are that there are numerous middle grounds between letting them all in and trying to keep them all out.


    Quote:

      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:

        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:
    I think the point was...the Politicans have an agenda, and in this case to keep the borders "open". And they were interfering with this information getting out and with the press. You seem to have a problem when Trump does this...why not here?


Why do you keep getting the idea that I am for unregulated individuals entering a country?

I have major issues with Trump doing or proposing the same things being proposed by the other poster. That does not mean I am against vetting or punishing thos that commit crimes or trying to stop those with criminal goals.


    Quote:
    But no outcry from those politicans with an agenda to keep those refugees coming yes? They attempted to cover it up. Should they not be held accountable? Should not their reasons be examined and questioned? Or do they get a free ride here? The politicians to be exact.


They should be. But I am not a total expert on what happened there. Looking at the things I see, it looks like alot of the cover up was by local police. At least if I am reading right.


    Quote:

      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.

      Quote:

        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.

        Quote:

          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:

            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.



    Quote:
    You have just called Terrorism a criminal act. Why are you calling them different things then? I think without a doubt Terrorism is flat out a criminal act. It's just more an adjective describing the motive behind the act. Yet you were trying to separate them higher up in the post as not being relevant. I think I am missing what your point is...since you seem to separate them or combine them to make your point (to me at least)...and that just doesn't work.


They are the same but not the same.

Terrorism is a crime. Not all crime is terrorism. Just because an immigrant or refugee commits a crime does not mean it is an act of terrorism. That is the whole thing. Period.


    Quote:

      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. You keep providing anecdotes. 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?

      Quote:

        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:

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



    Quote:
    True...they are extremely isolationist...to their detriment imo.


Not arguing about Japan one way or another. Or their politics. Merely that they are a bad example.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    Ehhh...dont agree here. Their samauris and caste sytem not too different from Knights and Medieval Europe. WW2 and after they have been pulled into the rest of the world and are strong member of the world economy. In the modern world sense...they are very tied into USA Europe Russia China etc...


That is not what I said at all. Nor does it change that Japan is a very homogenous society based on a xenophobic foreign policy. For longs periods of their history outsiders were not desired at all.

That they are a part of the world economy or allies of the US has no impact on them as a comparter to Poland. Japan has minimal presence in the middle east. They are more involved with the US conflicts in that region.

I am just saying, maybe I did not explained it poorly, but nothing you said there is relevant to my point.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    This supports his argument though...harder for terrorists to get to. Harder to enter their society, and they have much less terrorism.


Not really, it makes it easier to control their borders than other countries. They are not right up on their neighbors which has led to histories of isolationist policies over the years. And ironically, expansionist ideals at other times.



    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    In some ways you are right...in others it can be relevant. Its neither a great example nor a useless one.


In terms of accurate comparisons in terms of statistics or numbers it is extremely useless. There is no reason to bring Japan into this argument. Other than to say that one policy is the end all be all cause of something.

It is not possible to make that case. It is nice that you want to debate each point but it changes nothing about it.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    The thing is...some EU countries are trying to make other EU countries do things they don't want to. When it comes down to it...isn't it their right to decide WHOM they let into their borders?


That is a separate issue. A country that is in the EU has to abide by the rules the EU sets up. If they want out than that is fine.

One of the things that allows easy movement of potential unsavory types in Europe is free travel for citizens in the countries. This has been cracked down on a little but only to a point.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    Poland is not a top 3 EU country but it is a top 6 (at least economically...maybe 5th since Brexit). And has strong ties to Germany. That they resist this refugee decision, championed by Merkle does make this an issue.


Again, what does that have to do with it. Being a strong economy does not mean one is a target for terror.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    Not wanting mass refugees with a unarguable higher percentage of terrorists among them is not isolationist.


What is the percentage? And wanting outsiders not allowed in is very much an isolationist policy. It is not taking the country full that way.


    Quote:

      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:
    Because of Hollywood movies. But I don't buy that there are not targets they can pick in Wyoming that would lead to a massive impact. It's not always about the number of deaths, its about how soft the target is versus the impact.


Partly, also higher impact. I think you are largely being ridiculous.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    It makes a great target...strong EU economy, extremely strong US ties.


But minimal involvement in the middle east and the conflicts that they are involved in. So, from their view it is not an optimal target.

I am not sure why that is hard to grasp. A strong economy does not matter. It is about symbolism.


    Quote:

      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:

        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:

          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.

          Quote:

            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?

            Quote:

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

              Quote:

                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:

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

                  Quote:

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

                    Quote:

                      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?



    Quote:
    I will ask you the same questions you ask other people who post these things:



    Quote:
    1)What is the political agenda of the group that did this research?
    2)Does their study of previous waves of immigration actually apply here. They use the word immigration...this is not the same as refuges. Then later they mention asylum seeker did have a small increase in crime where as workers did not.
    3)Where exactly did these immigrants come from? Does their idealogy vary as drastically as the current waves? Are the conditions the same etc...or are apples and oranges being compared.


1. I have not. My claim is generally those with conflicting interests should be questioned.

It is not from a political think tank. I do not know the political leanings of the writers but if the analysis is carried out well it does not matter.

Conditions are rarely the same other than policy reactions. And potentially the reasons of migration. The current migration issue is much bigger than anything seen since WW2. Everything is going to be apples to oranges in some way. At least on this sort of thing.

I was unable to find good numbers for things regarding the more recent trend. One can assume a higher or lower percentage of terrorist sympathies pending ones leanings.


    Quote:
    That said I don't think immigrant = increased crime myself. America imo is great BECAUSE it is a melting pot of immigrants and nationalities. We and EU need to find something that works and avoids making mistakes of the past and repeating them over and over. There needs to be a way to allow refugees and immigrants in and vet them at the same time. I dont think anyone is doing it right these days. Letting in too many illegally or denying too many entrance seems to be the only 2 policies by any government out there these days.



    Quote:

      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:

        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.

        Quote:

          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:

            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.

            Quote:

              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:

                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.

                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."

                  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:

                        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:

                      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:

                        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.

                        Quote:

                          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.



    Quote:
    I agree...there is a problem though. There is a tendency for large groups of immigrants to stay together (understandable) and make little or no effort to join the country they are now in. Everything cannot be on the country letting them in, refugees have to make some efforts for integration on their own. Making them feel welcome...yes...just letting them in isn't enough...but its a 2-way street.


Where are you getting the idea that I am saying let them all in? You are throwing a straw man against me and apparently ignoring the other fellows point outright.

His point is that refugees should be kept out. Period, keep them out. They are terrorists and awful. Based on what? There are examples but one cannot argue keeping them out will prevent 100% of anything. It is not possible to make that case. It is not even thatb ased on the examples given.

My entire premise is that there are loads of room between let them all in and keep them all out. I am arguing for something in the middle. I am not sure what the answer is.

Also, increasing the number of people in an area leads to increases in crime. That is just the way it is. It is a problem, but innocent until proven guilty is something that we pride ourselves on in the West.







Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 59.0.3071.115 on Windows 10
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