Support NeoGAF

[Hoya Destroyer]

Of course it's not something a large number of any civilized European population would agree with. But these strikes are not isolated cases by any means, they are a part of a much bigger anti-immigrant movement, which include organized groups like Nordic Resistance Movement and Soldiers of Odin as well as multiple "media" outlets around the Nordic.

The numbers of incidents those articles mention is only 14. There is no suggestion of deadly intent/attempted murder, or that the perps knew each other or were tied to any racist far right groups. The first article even says "In every case, the perpetrators were intoxicated to a greater or lesser degree when they carried out the attacks". So it really does sound like isolated cases of drunk, racist vandals.
Comparing this stuff to someone else murdering tens of innocent people is ridiculous.

By the way, are you suggesting that a large number of non-European (I gather you mean muslim) population supports the Brussels strikes?

Scroll down close to the bottom of this link and you will see why many people fear Islam.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Look at the numbers of those who often and/or sometimes feel suicide bombing are justified (add the 'rarely' figures to that too, if you want). Its not hard or unreasonable to believe many terrorist sympathizers are coming into Europe as migrants (not even counting the ones that are already there) based on this kind of information. Terrorist sympathizers breed active terrorists.

 

[Nivash]

Just out of curiosity where are you from?

Is it inhumane to protect your country's own interests?

There's this view, I don't understand. Why should countries not involved in any kind or form on a conflict be obliged to take immigrants of dubious precedence into a region/continent that has numerous times proved its incompetence to prevent terrorist attacks, with laughable background checks, sloppy criminal persecution and sentencing.

Look at the perpetrators, all of them had criminal records. Now imagine, people with no records coming in droves to your country... you call it inhumane, I call it being rational, there's nothing more human than rationality.

Take it to a global scale, where's Saudi Arabia and other powerful rich as fuck Muslim nations in all of this? Where's Israel? They know it's stupid, and they are laughing at how Europe is being dumb as fuck.

I'm Swedish. And before you ask no, our country is not on the brink of collapse.

Why should countries accept refugees? Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a start. Or just human decency: should we, for instance, have shut the doors for Polish Jews during WW2 just because we weren't involved in the war?

I don't care if some of the refugees are criminals because I'm not going the fuck over the innocent refugees because of that. I don't even care if some are terrorists because I'm still not going to fuck over the innocent refugees. I'm in favor of other efforts to deal with criminals and terrorists but no, it not going to fuck over the innocent refugees to do it.

As for Saudi Arabia and Israel, who cares. We don't use them as excuses to remove freedom of speech, persecute minorities or oppress women, so why are we suddenly going to use them as excuses to violate the human rights of refugees?

 

[Jasup]

The numbers of incidents those articles mention is only 14. There is no suggestion of deadly intent/attempted murder, or that the perps knew each other or were tied to any racist far right groups. The first article even says "In every case, the perpetrators were intoxicated to a greater or lesser degree when they carried out the attacks". So it really does sound like isolated cases of drunk, racist vandals.
Comparing this stuff to someone else murdering tens of innocent people is ridiculous.

I wasn't arguing that the strikes were directly organized by these two groups, which are part of a bigger movement. However I was arguing that the strikes were not isolated as you yourself suggested.

Scroll down close to the bottom of this link and you will see why many people fear Islam.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Look at the numbers of those who often and/or sometimes feel suicide bombing are justified (add the 'rarely' figures to that too, if you want). Its not hard or unreasonable to believe many terrorist sympathizers are coming into Europe as migrants (not even counting the ones that are already there) based on this kind of information. Terrorist sympathizers breed active terrorists.

So, your answer is yes?

 

[Netherscourge]

I can't blame them. If they don't have a strong customs filtering system in place with even stronger borders and weapons checkpoints to prevent an underground railroad for terror weapons into the country, then you're asking for an attack.

 

[Cuyejo]

I'm Swedish. And before you ask no, our country is not on the brink of collapse.

Why should countries accept refugees? Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a start. Or just human decency: should we, for instance, have shut the doors for Polish Jews during WW2 just because we weren't involved in the war?

I don't care if some of the refugees are criminals because I'm not going the fuck over the innocent refugees because of that. I don't even care if some are terrorists because I'm still not going to fuck over the innocent refugees. I'm in favor of other efforts to deal with criminals and terrorists but no, it not going to fuck over the innocent refugees to do it.

As for Saudi Arabia and Israel, who cares. We don't use them as excuses to remove freedom of speech, persecute minorities or oppress women, so why are we suddenly going to use them as excuses to violate the human rights of refugees?

Is that a joke? bringing WW2... you took refugees, but you nonchalantly let the Germans pass through your territories, stacked them with iron, you were crucial to the Nazi war machine. Actually, that's the point, let's say you ''weren't involved in WW2'' why?
Because your population would have suffered the same fate every other European nation faced through war, your government chose the easy route and not to fight a superior force. They protected their own interests.

You cowardly took neutrality in the most vile of all conflicts perpetrated by mankind, don't go citing human rights articles... ffs, I'm not against taking immigrants, but the way you are doing it... it's going to blow it up in your faces in the future, NO DOUBT.
You are forcing integration, you are forcing assimilation to established cultures, clashes are going to happen, extremists are going to get in. You are migrating cultural issues from the middle east to all Europe. Are you prepared? Is every country in Europe prepared? Should some countries be criticized if they say they are not ready to receive refugees? What's the general sentiment of the people? Are you not democracies?

Again, don't go citing human rights articles...

 

[Chittagong]

Merkel is getting lynched by her own citizens for all the chaos she brought upon Germany while right-wing extremist parties are laughing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-merkel-afd-refugee-right-wing-a6929016.html

Bu... bu.. leftist gaf told me that Merkel and her party have strong support for the open borders policy and that her immigration policy doesn't risk the rise of far right in Germany. Quite literally that's what I was told, when I warned that the chaos will lead to the rise of far right.

 

[Jasup]

Is that a joke? bringing WW2... you took refugees, but you nonchalantly let the Germans pass through your territories, stacked them with iron, you were crucial to the Nazi war machine. Actually, that's the point, let's say you ''weren't involved in WW2'' why?
Because your population would have suffered the same fate every other European nation face through war, your government chose the easy route and not to fight a superior force. They protected their own interests.

You cowardly took neutrality in the most vile of all conflicts perpetrated by mankind, don't go citing human rights articles... ffs, I'm not against taking immigrants, but the way you are doing it... it's going to blow it up in your faces in the future, NO DOUBT.

Sorry to butt in: but what if it's in the nation's interests to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I wasn't arguing that the strikes were directly organized by these two groups, which are part of a bigger movement. However I was arguing that the strikes were not isolated as you yourself suggested.

Your articles mention 14 cases. Finland has a population of just under 5 and a half million. Im just repeating my last answer here, in that those crimes do seem isolated, carried out by drunk racists and though not very nice, are not anywhere near as bad as tens of innocent people being blown to bits (and permanently maimed on top of that).

So, your answer is yes?

Based on the frequency and severity of violence in many majority Muslim countries, numbers like the one in the survey I linked to in my previous post, their over representation in every crime report/article I have seen (for their adopted countries), anecdotal evidence such as local (Australian) news reports (from our free to air, left leaning media) of violent crime happening consistently and disproportionately in largely Muslim suburbs (South West Sydney) and my own personal interactions with Middle Eastern people (mostly Lebanese), I can only logically conclude that there is a reasonable chance that a significant number of Muslims do support religious violence. Thats not racism, its cause and effect.

 

[Nivash]

Is that a joke? bringing WW2... you took refugees, but you nonchalantly let the Germans pass through your territories, stacked them with iron, you were crucial to the Nazi war machine. Actually, that's the point, let's say you ''weren't involved in WW2'' why?
Because your population would have suffered the same fate every other European nation face through war, your government chose the easy route and not to fight a superior force. They protected their own interests.

You cowardly took neutrality in the most vile of all conflicts perpetrated by mankind, don't go citing human rights articles... ffs, I'm not against taking immigrants, but the way you are doing it... it's going to blow it up in your faces in the future, NO DOUBT.

I didn't say we were doing the right thing during WW2, we should obviously have taken in more refugees and we should have taken a stand against Nazi Germany (not that we had much of an ability to, but hey). I wasn't even using Sweden in the sense of "we" as much as neutral countries in general and the overall principle of accepting refugees, for instance Polish Jews.

And why on Earth are you dismissing what I say about human rights because of what my country did during WW2? Not even my parents were born yet back then. This has nothing to do with nationalities, I'm perfectly free - as a private individual - to criticise Swedish inaction during WW2 and Polish inaction now in equal measure. You can't possibly suggest that makes me a hypocrite.

As for the future, you're perfectly free to believe whatever you want. It's still not an excuse to fuck over innocent refugees right now.

EDIT: Continued quote:

You are forcing integration, you are forcing assimilation to established cultures, clashes are going to happen, extremists are going to get in. You are migrating cultural issues from the middle east to all Europe. Are you prepared? Is every country in Europe prepared? Should some countries be criticized if they say they are not ready to receive refugees? What's the general sentiment of the people? Are you not democracies?

Again, don't go citing human rights articles...

I'm not sure what you mean by "forcing integration" but I'm fairly sure I don't really care. Yes, clashes will happen. Yes, extremists will get in. Still not an excuse to fuck over innocent refugees. I think you're exaggerating the problems brought by immigration to a frankly absurd degree. And yes, I maintain the right to criticize any country using flimsy excuses to fuck over innocent refugees. I think you'll find this is a perfectly democratic thing to do and in line with freedom of speech. If a democratic decision was immune to criticism it would frankly be the end of democracy.

 

[Cuyejo]

Sorry to butt in: but what if it's in the nation's interests to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

If that's referring as in a referendum taken decision I totally agree with the validity of such, as is in my opinion such a delicate situation as this should be handled with that method of consultation without a doubt, most European nations are not taking this route as far as I'm aware. There has to be cohesion between population thoughts and what's going to happen, upholding the UDHR for the sake of upholding it without taking a close view of the problems you are bringing in is counterproductive, and it can actually convert all of this into a boiling pot and give birth to a much bigger crisis in the future.
My view: Europe is handling this poorly.

 

[Jasup]

Your articles mention 14 cases. Finland has a population of just under 5 and a half million. Im just repeating my last answer here, in that those crimes do seem isolated, carried out by drunk racists and though not very nice, are not anywhere near as bad as tens of innocent people being blown to bits (and permanently maimed on top of that).

So when do the attacks stop being isolated?

Based on the frequency and severity of violence in many majority Muslim countries, numbers like the one in the survey I linked to in my previous post, their over representation in every crime report/article I have seen (for their adopted countries), anecdotal evidence such as local (Australian) news reports (from our free to air, left leaning media) of violent crime happening consistently and disproportionately in largely Muslim suburbs (South West Sydney) and my own personal interactions with Middle Eastern people (mostly Lebanese), I can only logically conclude that there is a reasonable chance that a significant number of Muslims do support religious violence. Thats not racism, its cause and effect.

So the answers is yes. Thank you, I got my answer.

If that's referring as in a referendum taken decision I totally agree with the validity of such, as is in my opinion such a delicate situation as this should be handled with that method of consultation without a doubt, most European nations are not taking this route as far as I'm aware. There has to be cohesion between population thoughts and what's going to happen, upholding the UDHR for the sake of upholding it without taking a close view of the problems you are bringing in is counterproductive, and it can actually convert all of this into a boiling pot and give birth to a much bigger crisis in the future.
My view: Europe is handling this poorly.

I agree, Europe is handling this poorly. However you didn't answer my question, what if after all the consideration the nation decides to uphold the UDHR?
Could there be other ways to deal with the upcoming problems?

 

[Cuyejo]

So when do the attacks stop being isolated?


So the answers is yes. Thank you, I got my answer.


I agree, Europe is handling this poorly. However you didn't answer my question, what if after all the consideration the nation decides to uphold the UDHR?
Could there be other ways to deal with the upcoming problems?

Already answered it, in a democratic republic such a delicate situation should be put a citizens decision, a referendum. If they approve it well, they get what they want.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

So when do the attacks stop being isolated?

When large organized groups of repeat offender racists collude to vandalize migrant housing? Im sure it would have to be more than a few dozen lone drunks committing a single vandalism offense each, within a 12 month period.

So the answers is yes. Thank you, I got my answer.

An answer that you resent, but the only logical and honest one I can give.

 

[Jasup]

Already answered it, in a democratic republic such a delicate situation should be put a citizenship decision, a referendum. If they approve it well, they get what they want.

Ah, so you did. Thanks for the answer, that's all I wanted.

When large organized groups of repeat offender racists collude to vandalize migrant housing? Im sure it would have to be more than a few dozen lone drunks committing a single vandalism offense each, within a 12 month period.

But the organized attacks by the Nordic resistance movement fit the bill? Granted, they're more centered against politicians and the leftists, but they're organized.

An answer that you resent, but the only logical and honest one I can give.

Please don't put words (or thoughts) in my mouth

 

[KonradLaw]

. I'll sum it up: it's inhumane, pathetic and in complete conflict with everything western civilisation is supposed to stand for. I thought we, as in Europeans, were better than this.

If borders aren't closed we could see 35 milllon people come to EU in next decade or so. EU can't handle that.

Poland isn't really fully western country anyway. It's always been a mix of western and eastern civilizations. In this case we'll choose to stick to eastern one .If being part of western civilization requires suiciding your own country for the sake of some misguided noble intentions then we don't want anything to do with such civilization.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I didn't vote for the current party and I in fact hate it that they've won but I agree with Szydlo's decision even though I know it's only an excuse to back down from what the previous government has promised. The cultural differences between our country and the countries from where the immigrants/refugees come from are just too big. And it's not like I'm opposed to helping others. I'm glad that my country has accepted refugees from Ukraine when their country was invaded by Russia.

 

[Nivash]

If borders aren't closed we could see 35 milllon people come to EU in next decade or so. EU can't handle that.

Poland isn't really fully western country anyway. It's always been a mix of western and eastern civilizations. In this case we'll choose to stick to eastern one .If being part of western civilization requires suiciding your own country for the sake of some misguided noble intentions then we don't want anything to do with such civilization.

You do realise that there's a middle way between "take everyone" and "take no one"? The Polish government is saying it's incapable of taking in even 7 000 refugees over 4 years in a population of 38 million. That's just utterly absurd. And for the record, I'm fairly certain the EU could in a pinch handle a population increase of less than a percent a year without committing civilizational suicide, even if I don't think there will really be a need for that. You're being ridiculously hyperbolic.

7,000 over four years was laughable anyways. Sweden took in up 10 000 refugees per week last fall, and that with a population of around 10 million people vs 38 million in Poland.

And according to some people in this thread that apparently means we've signed our own death warrant or something. Laughable is the word alright.

 

[moniker]

7,000 over four years was laughable anyways. Sweden took in up 10 000 refugees per week last fall, and that with a population of around 10 million people vs 38 million in Poland.

And according to some people in this thread that apparently means we've signed our own death warrant or something. Laughable is the word alright.

I certainly don't think that, but I do think it will have consequences that will be felt for a long time.

 

[KonradLaw]

You do realise that there's a middle way between "take everyone" and "take no one"? The Polish government is saying it's incapable of taking in even 7 000 refugees over 4 years in a population of 38 million. That's just utterly absurd.

Maybe, but only if we then send them back after the war is over. I doubt the goverment is never going to accept those 7K anyway. They will just be as difficult and obstructive as possible, to ensure those 7K is all we we'll ever need to take. Even if our previous PM (Donald Tusk) is actually doing more to secure that outcome than anyone from current goverment.

That said, taking in any large numbers migrants isn't sensible. In fact, it's just plain dumb. Because most of people who come to EU do not need help. But Europe will burn cash on them, while cutting the aid to people outside EU who actually need that help.
For every migrant you take into EU you could help 20-30 outside EU. So people who support taking in big numbers of migrants into EU bassicaly care more about making themselves feel good than about actually doing good.
You live in Sweden right? You country is already considering cutting foreign aid by 60% and moving that money for helping migrants. Do you have any idea what kind of disasters will happen if the whole EU cut most of it's foreign aid?

I don't mind if Poland takes those 7K (not anymore though and definitely not any quotas systems, Merkel can go and choke on that idea, plus we need to protect local muslim population from them), but it's just empty gesture. I would rather we not take even one and instead take the money those 7K would use and invest them in camps in Turkey or Lebanon.

I'm fairly certain the EU could in a pinch handle a population increase of less than a percent a year without committing civilizational suicide

1% per year means in couple generations some countries' (the ones most desirable for migrants) citizens will become minorities in their own countries.

 

[Nivash]

Maybe, but only if we then send them back after the war is over. I doubt the goverment is never going to accept those 7K anyway. They will just be as difficult and obstructive as possible, to ensure those 7K is all we we'll ever need to take. Even if our previous PM (Donald Tusk) is actually doing more to secure that outcome than anyone from current goverment.

That said, taking in any large numbers migrants isn't sensible. In fact, it's just plain dumb. Because most of people who come to EU do not need help. But Europe will burn cash on them, while cutting the aid to people outside EU who actually need that help.
For every migrant you take into EU you could help 20-30 outside EU. So people who support taking in big numbers of migrants into EU bassicaly care more about making themselves feel good than about actually doing good.

You can't just keep everyone in camps outside the EU. Turkey is hosting millions on its own and poor Lebanon currently hosts more refugees than Lebanese - now that's unsustainable rates of immigration. For all we know, it won't be possible to send people back to Syria for decades. No amount of money in the world is going to give the refugees anything approaching humane conditions under those circumnstances, they need to be relocated to countries that aren't as badly hit.

You live in Sweden right? You country is already considering cutting foreign aid by 60% and moving that money for helping migrants. Do you have any idea what kind of disasters will happen if the whole EU cut most of it's foreign aid?

There's absolutely no reason to cut foreign aid to care for refugees. It's a completely populist move, not even Sweden spends more than 1 % of GDP. We could easily cover that 0.6 % of GDP by slightly raising taxes, borrowing some, or redistributing it from less vital budget posts. It's a despicable move that's not worthy of a Social Democrat/Green coalition government and a reason I probably won't vote for them again next election.

I should probably also point out that Poland just spends 0.1 % of GDP on foreign aid which is the second lowest of all OECD nations. Forgive me if I have doubts that the Polish government is going to turn around and spend the billions necessary to make a difference in the refugee camps.

I don't mind if Poland takes those 7K (not anymore though and definitely not any quotas systems, Merkel can go and choke on that idea, plus we need to protect local muslim population from them), but it's just empty gesture. I would rather we not take even one and instead take the money those 7K would use and invest them in camps in Turkey or Lebanon.

Again, we can't just keep half the Syrian population in camps in Turkey and Lebanon for decades. If for no other reason because of the fact that the squalor and despair would create a more fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruiters than anywhere that we could see in Europe.

And I think you'll find that quotas are necessary if you want to keep freedom of movement. We can't have open interior borders without common exterior borders. I know you'd prefer that we simply close our external borders entirely but that's completely unreasonable and unconscionable.

1% per year means in couple generations some countries' (the ones most desirable for migrants) citizens will become minorities in their own countries.

There are currently 60 million people displaced by war globally in total, your 3.5 million a year would absorb them all in less than 20 years. You would never see that rate sustained for generations because there simply aren't even that many refugees to go around. I was just commenting that even your worst case scenario is manageable.

EDIT: Missed a decimal point, it's obviously 3.5 million a year for 20 years no 35 million for 2 years. My point still stands, that level is undesirable but not civilisation-ending.

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

 

[KonradLaw]

You can't just keep everyone in camps outside the EU.

Sure you can

Turkey is hosting millions on its own and poor Lebanon currently hosts more refugees than Lebanese

And those are the countries we should be investing in, not burn money inside EU.

No amount of money in the world is going to give the refugees anything approaching humane conditions under those circumnstances

Those camps already are pretty humane. Often far more humane then some Greek camps. And with money and manpower we could further improve them.

Again, we can't just keep half the Syrian population in camps in Turkey and Lebanon for decades. If for no other reason because of the fact that the squalor and despair would create a more fertile breeding ground for terrorist recruiters than anywhere that we could see in Europe.

So far the Europe has been hit by terrorists who are living in Europe, mostly in wealthy families. So obviously taking them in and helping them does absolutely nothing to stop them from becoming radicalized.

And I think you'll find that quotas are necessary if you want to keep freedom of movement. We can't have open interior borders without common exterior borders. I know you'd prefer that we simply close our external borders entirely but that's completely unreasonable and unconscionable.

The only quotas that would be possible to implement are coalitions of the willing. There will be no quotas for Eastern Europe. It's impossible. Won't happen. You can stop daydreaming about it now. Nobody will pull your ass out of fire this time if you continue to stubbornly climb into that furnace.

There are currently 60 million people displaced by war globally in total, your 35 million a year would absorb them all in less than 2 years.

I've said 35 mln in ten years. Not a year. And no, it's not sustainable. This ammount would start a race war in Europe. Already far right is spreading like fire, with merely 10% of those numbers. Add complete collapse of health and social systems (which would be inevitable, since majority of those people will never become selfsuficent in their new countries) and explosion of violence would be impossible to stop.

Bassicaly, sorry, but you won't get any support from most eastern europe and even a lot of western europe is starting to radicalize when it comes to anti-immigration.

Realistically if you would like to continue taking in those millions of people then pretty soon all of them will have to taken by Germany, Sweden and maybe few other countries. If you're ready to do this, then you will might get your wish. But if you think you will be able to spread migrants through whole EU you're in for a huge dissapoitment.
But it's ok, I think you will manage. Sweden seems to be world champions at integration of migrants, So you will easily be able to soak up couple millions more.

 

[Jumeira]

You can't just keep everyone in camps outside the EU. Turkey is hosting millions on its own and poor Lebanon currently hosts more refugees than Lebanese - now that's unsustainable rates of immigration. For all we know, it won't be possible to send people back to Syria for decades. No amount of money in the world is going to give the refugees anything approaching humane conditions under those circumnstances, they need to be relocated to countries that aren't as badly hit.

Yeah, ive always thought its a terrible idea to quarantine refugees in camps until the wars have passed, and the idea of sending back refugees is just as bad as we effectively place them in limbo and prevent them from living their lives and fulfilling whatever hopes and ambitions they have. Besides, we send them back to their countries where they'll more than likely not have any opportunity to rebuild.

Poland is the highest receiver of EU handouts so im not sure if they can continue to take money whist compromising their EU duty without incurring some form of penalty. 7k is a paltry amount.

Those camps already are pretty humane. Often far more humane then some Greek camps. And with money and manpower we could further improve them.

Camps are for processing not living, its temporary and these people need settling with an opportunity to live in peace, or in this case in refuge. The surrounding countries are rife with corruption and are prone to attacks, weather its Israeli jets or ISIS/Kurdish bombs its not safe. Its a terrible solution to this issue.

 

[KonradLaw]

. Besides, we send them back to their countries where they'll more than likely not have any opportunity to rebuild.

If you won't send them back their countries will likely never get rebuilt and become stable. In time this will only lead to another war.

.
Poland is the highest receiver of EU handouts so im not sure if they can continue to take money whist compromising their EU duty without incurring some form of penalty. 7k is a paltry amount.

THe crisis happened few years too late for that. Poland is in it's last years of taking big ammount of EU cash. In the next long-term budget we won't get anywhere near as much. So the blackmail potential is bassicaly finished. Poland will skate the next few years, raising drama and problems at every step of the way. Recieving those 7K will take long years and will cost enourmous ammount of effort from EU. By the time it's done the crisis will either be over or it will get so bad that loosing some EU funds will be small price to pay for staying out of this mess.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Yeah, I'm sure those more than 100 assaulted and raped women and girls in Cologne are all thinking 'we sure showed them!'.

Merkel is getting lynched by her own citizens for all the chaos she brought upon Germany while right-wing extremist parties are laughing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-merkel-afd-refugee-right-wing-a6929016.html

Bu... bu.. leftist gaf told me that Merkel and her party have strong support for the open borders policy and that her immigration policy doesn't risk the rise of far right in Germany. Quite literally that's what I was told, when I warned that the chaos will lead to the rise of far right.

LMAO. How is the AfD getting 15% a sign that people in Germany are unhappy with Merkel's policies? You realise that this does mean that 85% do approve of welcoming refugees? Because all the other parties have a very similar stance regarding this.

 

[Nivash]

Sure you can. And those are the countries we should be investing in, not burn money inside EU. Those camps already are pretty humane. Often far more humane then some Greek camps. And with money and manpower we could further improve them.

Please explain to me how you propose keeping what is likely to be over 10 million Syrians alone in camps in Turkey and Lebanon in a humane way. I'm not talking about simple necessities, you need to give these people some shot at a future - you can't expect them to just peacefully waste away in tents with no education, jobs or opportunities for generations. Because again, the Syrian civil war could rage on for years and years and end up in a scenario where it's still impossible to send people back. Look at Somalia, they've had a civil war now for three decades. Look at North Korea, that's the kind of society a victorious Assad might set up - only with even more torture.

So far the Europe has been hit by terrorists who are living in Europe, mostly in wealthy families. So obviously taking them in and helping them does absolutely nothing to stop them from becoming radicalized.

You don't think that risk is going to be even greater when you have tens of millions of people in refugee camps who have no future? Really? You might want to look at the driving causes in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Terrorism isn't some genetic affliction affecting middle eastern people that strikes at random no matter what the external circumstances, it's something that becomes much more likely to attract people who already feel excluded from society and robbed of their futures.

The only quotas that would be possible to implement are coalitions of the willing. There will be no quotas for Eastern Europe. It's impossible. Won't happen. And we'll have to close the borders anyway. Otherwise you will literaly have to put every migrant in EE into a prison to stop him from escaping to Germany or Sweden.

I'm not proposing that the EU steamroll the dissenting countries, it would obviously have to be a unanimous decision. I'm simply stating why I think it's a necessity. You're also completely misunderstanding the reason people currently move around as refugees in Europe which is because they can apply for asylum in any given country. With a unified system you would apply for the EU and be assigned a country, then you would have the option of living legally in that country or illegally on the streets of Germany or Sweden. Refugees are not citizens and do not have freedom of movement, they can't just set up in any country of their choice because they wouldn't have the right to work, benefits or anything beyond a short tourist visit, really.

I've said 35 mln in ten years. Not a year. And no, it's not sustainable. This ammount would start a race war in Europe. Already far right is spreading like fire, with merely 10% of those numbers. Add complete collapse of health and social systems (which would be inevitable, since majority of those people will never become selfsuficent in their new countries) and explosion of violence would be impossible to stop.

Bassicaly, sorry, but you won't get any support from most eastern europe and even a lot of western europe is starting to radicalize when it comes to anti-immigration.

Realistically if you would like to continue taking in those millions of people then pretty soon all of them will have to taken by Germany, Sweden and maybe few other countries. If you're ready to do this, then you will might get your wish. But if you think you will be able to spread migrants through whole EU you're in for a huge dissapoitment.

I lost a decimal point so my bad on the 35 vs 3.5 million.

Health and social systems would not collapse under the strain of a mere 1 % population increase a year. That's ridiculous, they weather greater fluctuations than that regularly. And again, this is the worst case scenario - not a particularly likely scenario, beyond a single year or two. I'm also perfectly aware that the European population give so little of a shit about other people that we're already edging towards a race war for no good reason whatsoever beyond hate and xenophobia so no, I'm not delusional enough to think Europe will step up and do the right thing. We'll just continue to attack minorities and fight between ourselves, like we've always done. I hope history judges us harshly if we even make it through this century in our fractured state.

 

[michaelius]

I'm not proposing that the EU steamroll the dissenting countries, it would obviously have to be a unanimous decision. I'm simply stating why I think it's a necessity. You're also completely misunderstanding the reason people currently move around as refugees in Europe which is because they can apply for asylum in any given country. With a unified system you would apply for the EU and be assigned a country, then you would have the option of living legally in that country or illegally on the streets of Germany or Sweden. Refugees are not citizens and do not have freedom of movement, they can't just set up in any country of their choice because they wouldn't have the right to work, benefits or anything beyond a short tourist visit, really.

EU already steamrolled dissenting countries when they forced first quota.

 

[KonradLaw]

Please explain to me how you propose keeping what is likely to be over 10 million Syrians alone in camps in Turkey and Lebanon in a humane way. I'm not talking about simple necessities, you need to give these people some shot at a future - you can't expect them to just peacefully waste away in tents with no education, jobs or opportunities for generations. Because again, the Syrian civil war could rage on for years and years and end up in a scenario where it's still impossible to send people back. Look at Somalia, they've had a civil war now for three decades. Look at North Korea, that's the kind of society a victorious Assad might set up - only with even more torture.

Well..tough luck then. Can't help everyone. At least they will be alive and fed in those camps. That's enough.

You don't think that risk is going to be even greater when you have tens of millions of people in refugee camps who have no future?

Well, even if it will radicalize with closed borders their terrorist attacks will happen outside EU. The overall number of terrorist attacks might end up being bigger, but their ammount in EU will be smaller than if we let those people in.

I'm not proposing that the EU steamroll the dissenting countries, it would obviously have to be a unanimous decision. I'm simply stating why I think it's a necessity.

It's not necessity when you can close the borders. And you will sooner find Syria becoming peace loving utopia than all EU countries making unanimous decision about accepting quotas. Even today it's impossible and the resistance will only continue to grow as months pass by. At this point trying this would be like trying to reverse the flow of river.

You're also completely misunderstanding the reason people currently move around as refugees in Europe which is because they can apply for asylum in any given country. With a unified system you would apply for the EU and be assigned a country, then you would have the option of living legally in that country or illegally on the streets of Germany or Sweden. Refugees are not citizens and do not have freedom of movement, they can't just set up in any country of their choice because they wouldn't have the right to work, benefits or anything beyond a short tourist visit, really.

You have really weirdly possitive outlook of those people. They ignore laws, try to break into EU by force, falsify documents etc. But you expect them to magically become law abiding citizens once the plan starts over. Already almost nobody gets deported, because even if they loose the social support they will just dissapear into illegal part of economy. And working in the grey market in Germany will always working legally in Poland;

Health and social systems would not collapse under the strain of a mere 1 % a year.

A large part of Europe is already creaking under the pressure of paying out benefits. Adding 35 millions of unemplyable people with terrible health would cause complete collapse.

I'm not delusional enough to think Europe will step up and do the right thing. We'll just continue to attack minorities and fight between ourselves, like we've always done. I hope history judges us harshly if we even make it through this century in our fractured state.

I think Europe will to the right thing and close the borders completely. And then history will judge it positively, as people who made those hard choices will be praised as those who saved the continent from diseaster. In the end everyone will be happy. Majority of EU will be happy they made that decision, while countries like Sweden will be able to feel comfortable they got the benefits from those decisions, while still keeping the moral high ground of opposing them.

 

[Stereogatari]

Morons. It's not refugees that are comitting terror.

 

[Nivash]

You have really weirdly possitive outlook of those people. They ignore laws, try to break into EU by force, falsify documents etc. But you expect them to magically become law abiding citizens once the plan starts over. Already almost nobody gets deported, because even if they loose the social support they will just dissapear into illegal part of economy. And working in the grey market in Germany will always working legally in Poland;

And in my mind you have a weirdly, if not uncommonly, negative view of these people. I work with these people almost every day, I know why they ran. I understand what made them desperate enough to ignore laws and their own safety to get away and I understand why they can't see a life for themselves in the overfilled refugee camps. The stories they've told could make your hair turn white. It's like the stuff from movies like The Road, things you associate with post-apocalyptic fantasies. Rape, torture, starvation, despair, everything you can imagine and worse. I can't share them because of confidentiality but I can assure you that I've seen no indication that they're making things up. If anything, you need to drag it out of them because they prefer not to think about it. All they want is to just get away and start over, I would do the exact same thing in their shoes. That's also why a lot of the people who end up getting deported prefer living on streets of Europe over getting sent back.

I think Europe will to the right thing and close the borders completely. And then history will judge it positively, as people who made those hard choices will be praised as those who saved the continent from diseaster. In the end everyone will be happy. Majority of EU will be happy they made that decision, while countries like Sweden will be able to feel comfortable they got the benefits from those decisions, while still keeping the moral high ground of opposing them.

And millions of people will suffer while we congratulate ourselves on our "hard choice".

 

[Roufianos]

I hope that my country (Finland) would do the same...

I wish Greece could do the same too. Europe has its own problems, regardless of the ISIS threat.

It's laughable to suggest that there's a moral obligation to take in these immigrants when some countries can barely support their own people.

Everyone condemning Poland, since you're so concerned about these migrants why not donate some money to the charities involved?

 

[Condom]

I wish Greece could do the same too. Europe has its own problems, regardless of the ISIS threat.

It's laughable to suggest that there's a moral obligation to take in these immigrants when some countries can barely support their own people.

Everyone condemning Poland, since you're so concerned about these migrants why not donate some money to the charities involved?

What makes you believe people don't do that already? Some people care about the world and don't worry about becoming 'a minority in your own country' or 'please we 1st world countries that bombed your countries can now barely support their own people' while others are suffering.

NATO fucked up the middle east, it's their job to clean up the mess too. If you don't want to do that then think twice the next time you bomb brown people

 

[Nathan_Drake]

As I understand it, Law and Justice (almost wrote Law and Order first, lol) gets most of their support from the older, rural, conservative population in the southeastern part of the country. Warzaw is probably liberal overall so it's no surprise that there are large protests there, but it's not representative of the aforementioned rural areas where L&J support is way, way more prevalent. Poland is actually a very polarised country in that respect.


See that orange enclave in the center-right part of the map? That's Warzaw. Leave the city though and you're deep in L&J country.

EDIT: Sorry, you wrote Krakow. I'm tired. Krakow would be one of the other enclaves down at the bottom which is also surrounded by deep L&J country.

Thanks for the reply. I am definitely not an expert. I was a European Studies Minor in Uni ha but my knowledge of Poland was not great. Since dating a Polish girl I have been more interested in the history. I completely understand about Warsaw not representing the country even though its the capitol. It is like Austin Texas being so different from the rest of the state but being where the government is located. It is also hard to use the same terminology for people in different parts of the world and think it has the same meaning. Most liberal people i met in Warsaw said that they tolerated homosexuals like that was a huge step up from the Right. In the US saying you tolerate a minority isnt quite enough to put you in the Liberal camp ha. I also noticed the lack of diversity when it came to different races. I won't say nationalities since that is hard to tell but I honestly met more American Mormons within the first 3 hours than I saw darker skinned people. That has to play into the xenophobia. A homogeneous society must find it harder to accept these refugees or immigrants. I asked if they snuck in the country illegally and my friends said no because it is known that Polish men would beat them up. I don't know if that is a notion that refugees have or not but it would be interesting if they don't need to build a fence because the level of fear is high.

It is all interesting and so are your alls opinions.

 

[Dennis]

Merkel is getting lynched by her own citizens for all the chaos she brought upon Germany while right-wing extremist parties are laughing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-merkel-afd-refugee-right-wing-a6929016.html

Who could see this coming?

Everyone.

 

[...Scatter...]

But the evidence is pretty clear, most all terrorism is done by native citizens of any particular country.

Native citizens being second or third generation Muslim though.

 

[mmazurkiewicz]

What makes you believe people don't do that already? Some people care about the world and don't worry about becoming 'a minority in your own country' or 'please we 1st world countries that bombed your countries can now barely support their own people' while others are suffering.

NATO fucked up the middle east, it's their job to clean up the mess too. If you don't want to do that then think twice the next time you bomb brown people

show us proof that someone is?
NATO is bombing terrorists. you identifying them as brown people proves what your argument is about.

i seriously hope there aren't any americans here criticizing this decision.

 

[ChetWilson]

Good job Poland; don't be anyone's bitch.

 

[Jumeira]

show us proof that someone is?
NATO is bombing terrorists. you identifying them as brown people proves what your argument is about.

i seriously hope there aren't any americans here criticizing this decision.

Silly form of evidence to ask for when even totalled is going to be insignificant and contributing little to help the people of these war ravaged regions. NATO bombing is the key point. Russia is targeting Ukrainian terrorist right? Yet innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire and require resettlement, which is what we agreed to after WW2.

Good job Poland; don't be anyone's bitch.

Poland were bitching when it came to us (uk) trying to curb state benefits to its citizens, they said it was unfair treatment. Yet they disregard thier responsibility to treat refugees with the same basic rights they expect for thier own. Crazy.

 

[Doczu]

Good job Poland; don't be anyone's bitch.

B-b-but everoyne here is talking about "european values, "moral obligations" and us being selfish, racist and xenophobic

And all those commenters talking about how happy they are that once the older generation dies out everything will become a liberal, open paradise - walk outside your damn safe space, the university campuses and social media. The trend is quite the opposite, with more and more younger people turning conservative.

 

[Kenshin001]

What makes you believe people don't do that already? Some people care about the world and don't worry about becoming 'a minority in your own country' or 'please we 1st world countries that bombed your countries can now barely support their own people' while others are suffering.

NATO fucked up the middle east, it's their job to clean up the mess too. If you don't want to do that then think twice the next time you bomb brown people

NATO didn't fuck up the Middle East. Middle Eastern people fucked it up with their crazy religion, sectarianism and tribalism. Islamic State killing Yezidis, Christians and Shiites, Syrians killing Syrians, Iraqis killing Iraqis, Saudis killing Yemenis and so on.

Assad drops barrel bombs on his own people and you blame NATO.

 

[Dennis]

And all those commenters talking about how happy they are that once the older generation dies out everything will become a liberal, open paradise - walk outside your damn safe space, the university campuses and social media.

Start with Molenbeek.

 

[nib95]

B-b-but everoyne here is talking about "european values, "moral obligations" and us being selfish, racist and xenophobic

And all those commenters talking about how happy they are that once the older generation dies out everything will become a liberal, open paradise - walk outside your damn safe space, the university campuses and social media. The trend is quite the opposite, with more and more younger people turning conservative.

Younger people are generally turning more conservative as a result of geopolitics and foreign policy implications. I think the problem is many people are simply letting fearmongering, self preservation and panic shape their morality. At the end of the day, we shouldn't allow a few terrorist attacks to do that.

I still have more of a chance getting struck by lightning than I do getting killed by some terrorist. Hell, I have a considerably greater chance of getting killed by being run over by a car or something similar. The point is, let the security forces do what they do best to prevent future attacks, but lets not make it greater than it actually is, or allow other xenophobes, racists etc, to use it as a platform to push their irrational and hate fuelled narratives either.

 

[Jumeira]

Native citizens being second or third generation Muslim though.

Wrong. Most terrorism in EU is not islamically inspired.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/

And even of they are from migrant heritage, doesn't mean it's because thier migrant - as there's an overwhelmingly large amount of people from the same background living peacefully.

NATO didn't fuck up the Middle East. Middle Eastern people fucked it up with their crazy religion, sectarianism and tribalism. Islamic State killing Yezidis, Christians and Shiites, Syrians killing Syrians, Iraqis killing Iraqis, Saudis killing Yemenis and so on.

Assad drops barrel bombs on his own people and you blame NATO.

Nice perspective, everything you mentioned took place after continous meddling by us. Not trying to absolve that region completely but it's pretty ignorant of you to turn a blind eye to our involvement in turning that place into what it currently is. Where were the frequent attacks and threats pre Iraq/Afghan war?
We've been meddling with the mideast for over 200 years. Russia, UK, France and more recently US.

 

[mmazurkiewicz]

Silly form of evidence to ask for when even totalled is going to be insignificant and contributing little to help the people of these war ravaged regions. NATO bombing is the key point. Russia is targeting Ukrainian terrorist right? Yet innocent civilians are getting caught in the crossfire and require resettlement, which is what we agreed to after WW2.

Poland were bitching when it came to us (uk) trying to curb state benefits to its citizens, they said it was unfair treatment. Yet they disregard thier responsibility to treat refugees with the same basic rights they expect for thier own. Crazy.

how many Polish immigrants in the UK have committed terrorism?

as it currently stands, i see the possibility of a terrorist strike in every country in europe in the next 12 months.

 

[Doczu]

Start with Molenbeek.

I was talking about those few polish posters who were (almost) apologizing for the "bad people in our country", but yeah, the should take a walk there.

Younger people are generally turning more conservative as a result of geopolitics and foreign policy implications. I think the problem is many people are simply letting fearmongering, self preservation and panic shape their morality. At the end of the day, we shouldn't allow a few terrorist attacks to do that.

So it's bad if they want to be that way, because it doesn't fit your world view? What if that's the way they think and they don't want to change?

 

[Jumeira]

how many Polish immigrants in the UK have committed terrorism?

as it currently stands, i see the possibility of a terrorist strike in every country in europe in the next 12 months.

There are plenty of polish immigrants committing crime in UK, in fact they're the highest represented foreign inmates in our prisons.

1 Ukrainian was in the process of committing terror attack, plotted to bomb a mosque and stabbed an elderly muslim man to death.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24614280

What's concerning is that you think these refugees will be terrorist. Even if they're screened, that's pretty messed up.

 

[Bedameister]

Yeah, I'm sure those more than 100 assaulted and raped women and girls in Cologne are all thinking 'we sure showed them!'.

Merkel is getting lynched by her own citizens for all the chaos she brought upon Germany while right-wing extremist parties are laughing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...a-merkel-afd-refugee-right-wing-a6929016.html

I think the word lynched is a little bit exaggerating in this context. Slightly.

 

[mmazurkiewicz]

There are plenty of polish immigrants committing crime in UK, in fact they're the highest minority in our prisons.

1 Ukrainian was in the process of committing terror attack, plotted to bomb a mosque and stabbed an elderly muslim man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24614280

What's concerning is that you think these refugees will be terrorist. Even if they're screened, that's pretty messed up.

so you're comparing crime to terrorism now?

crime happens all over the world daily while the recent rise in terrorism is committed by one group of individuals.

you honestly just said that Polish immigrants in the UK are terrorists.

 

[xenist]

you honestly just said that Polish immigrants in the UK are terrorists.

No silly, they can't be terrorists, they're not Muslim!

I don't see why these attacks are seen like such an existential threat as to warrant extreme measures. It's not like Europe hasn't prospered in spite of catastrophes worse than anything those ISIS goatfuckers could accomplish in their wildest, wettest dreams. If these cowards had to fight against someone like the USSR, who had the power to literally annihilate everyone and was an active sponsor of terrorism in Europe, they would be constantly fainting like those weird goats.

 

[M°°nblade]

Health and social systems would not collapse under the strain of a mere 1 % population increase a year. That's ridiculous, they weather greater fluctuations than that regularly. And again, this is the worst case scenario - not a particularly likely scenario, beyond a single year or two. I'm also perfectly aware that the European population give so little of a shit about other people that we're already edging towards a race war for no good reason whatsoever beyond hate and xenophobia so no, I'm not delusional enough to think Europe will step up and do the right thing.

You know nothing about Europe.
Instead of making wild assumptions and accusations, maybe you should look up the financial state of European countries. Loan and austerity programs keeping South European countries from going bankrupt (forgot Greece last year?) and retirement ages that went up to 67 in Belgium in order to keep the social system afloat to keep paying the pensions mean there is no right thing to do here.

Poland is obviously being very opportunistic here since no country will publicly attack them for backpedaling on their agreement to take in refugees, after these attacks. But that's what happens when one or two EU country try to speak for the entire union, welcome refugees and then, when the German public opinion turns against them, try to compromise with the countries they neglected before.