Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,106
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 09:02:15 pm EDT (Viewed 152 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 07:04:32 pm EDT (Viewed 136 times)



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


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


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?

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


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


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:
    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.


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:

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


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:
    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.


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?

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:
    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:
        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:
    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.


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:
    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.


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:

      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:
    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.


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



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Monitoring all the possible terrorists has become impossible.



    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.


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:
    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:
    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:
        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:
    What is a normal Frenchmen?


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



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



    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.


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:
    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.


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


    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.


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:
    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:
    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.


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:

      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:
    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:
    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:
    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.


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:
    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:
    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.


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:

      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:
    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:
    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.


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


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


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:
    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.


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


    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:
    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.


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.




Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 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