Support NeoGAF

[Darth Ghandi]

I asked you to show someone posting links in this thread to this far-right-media you are talking about/agreeing with the other poster about.

In Sweden we have had bunch.
But the point is that you are making that case.

 

[Des0lar]

Neither are Syrians.

Fucking bullshit.

Syrians make up most of the asylum applications in Germany by far.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Fucking bullshit.

Syrians make up most of the asylum applications in Germany by far.

Yup, hence my Citation Needed comment. You get a TONNE of fiction on this topic.

 

[Audioboxer]

You are justifying nationalism here. Is this your intent?

If that is your descriptor of nationalism, yes. What use is a country which burns itself to the ground on some warped moral high horse? A country most certainly has to balance its ability to self-sustain with being able to securely and safely handle immigration. Let us not forget most of our Western liberal societies do not see beating, raping and abusing women as legal. So yeah, we should damn well fight to make sure anyone we are going to bring in is at least going to have such beliefs challenged if they hold them. Preferably be willing to be re-educated and understand any such offences within a short span of being let in should equal swift deportation.

It seems your nationalism argument would be best aimed at these countries who offered no help at all

Gulf countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Other high income countries including Russia, Singapore and South Korea have also offered zero resettlement places

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/

Germany can still help refugees but do it in a way which allows them to protect their countries values, economy and ability for police forces and government to try and govern securely.

 

[Dalibor68]

Fucking bullshit.

Syrians make up most of the asylum applications in Germany by far.

See http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226972059&postcount=1545 (I edited in the last page and we're on a new page since)

However those statistics do also not account for dark figures, most of which presumably won't see syrians because then they'd have a good chance for asylum and wouldn't have to disappear

(dark figures as in "Dunkelziffer" as in unknown number of people who came in and disappeared)

 

[Des0lar]

See http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226972059&postcount=1545 (I edited in the last page and we're on a new page since)

See what? Austria gets a fraction of the people Germany gets in the first place and Afghans and Syrians have the same numbers (2015) or just marginally more (2016). Then you completely ignore that Syrians have an acceptance rate of 89% while Afghans 24%, which means that FAR more Syrians get to stay in Austria than Afghans.

And last but not least, do you really want to start the game of "Afghanistan is a safe country? Why are they applying as refugees?"

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You are justifying nationalism here. Is this your intent?

You are also not considering that this is a European problem. Refugees do not go away. They clog up at your borders. They're in your country, they need to be handled, right?

"They clog up at your borders"

"They're in your country"

If they're "at your borders", surely they're in someone else's country? What's with the abolition of responsibility of that country?

 

[Dalibor68]

See what? Austria gets a fraction of the people Germany gets in the first place and Afghans and Syrians have the same numbers (2015) or just marginally more (2016). Then you completely ignore that Syrians have an acceptance rate of 89% while Afghans 24%, which means that FAR more Syrians get to stay in Austria than Afghans.

And last but not least, do you really want to start the game of "Afghanistan is a safe country? Why are they applying as refugees?"

First sentence, wrong. Austria got more or less as many if not more people than germany last year per capita. Second sentence, wrong. They are more in both statistics. Third sentence, I didn't ignore anything because we weren't talking about acceptance rates but about people coming. People don't just take a train ticket back to their home countries once they were denied asylum, but many disappear or are allowed to stay anyways for various reasons.

Last but not least, I don't see how it is a game and yes it is a country that has safe enough areas, otherwise germany wouldn't start to deport them back now. There is no human right of having a decent life in central europe.

 

[mnz]

See http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226972059&postcount=1545 (I edited in the last page and we're on a new page since)

However those statistics do also not account for dark figures, most of which presumably won't see syrians because then they'd have a good chance for asylum and wouldn't have to disappear

(dark figures as in "Dunkelziffer" as in unknown number of people who came in and disappeared)

Uhm...did you look at your own link?

13,891 out of 19,660 persons granted asylum were Syrian.

 

[Dalibor68]

Uhm...did you look at your own link?



13,891 out of 19,660 persons granted asylum were Syrian.

We did not talk about people being granted asylum.

North Africans =/= the vast majority of the people who have flooded into Europe, though.

///

What use is a country which burns itself to the ground on some warped moral high horse?

Yeah this is something I really don't understand. If you apply the same logic of "no limits and if in doubt no controls" some people seem to have the view that for some unspecified reason it is our moral duty to take in an unlimited amount of people until society collapses and/or the nation is on the same low standards as the one they're fleeing from while also completely ignoring that resources, money and patience of the population isn't somehow an endless thing that can be cut into tinier pieces of the cake forever.

 

[SporeCrawler]

So basically this guy was going to get deported but the tunis government did not accept him right?

 

[Tk0n]

If that is your descriptor of nationalism, yes. What use is a country which burns itself to the ground on some warped moral high horse? A country most certainly has to balance its ability to self-sustain with being able to securely and safely handle immigration. Let us not forget most of our Western liberal societies do not see beating, raping and abusing women as legal. So yeah, we should damn well fight to make sure anyone we are going to bring in is at least going to have such beliefs challenged if they hold them. Preferably be willing to be re-educated and understand any such offences within a short span of being let in should equal swift deportation.

It seems your nationalism argument would be best aimed at these countries who offered no help at all



https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/

Germany can still help refugees but do it in a way which allows them to protect their countries values, economy and ability for police forces and government to try and govern securely.

you make it sound like germany is on the brink of collapse.
for most germans the refugee "crisis" was, at most, an inconvenience.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

"They clog up at your borders"

"They're in your country"

If they're "at your borders", surely they're in someone else's country? What's with the abolition of responsibility of that country?

Mostly because we live in an interconnected world - especially in Europe, and because refugee population movements are based on entirely different forces to, say, economic migrant forces.

Refugees are pushed out of a place. They're trying to get to a place of safety and security. They are trying to find a place that is not horrendously overcrowded - that's what happened in southern European countries. They're not being pulled in.

There's no abolition of responsibility here. It's just not how refugees actually work.

We almost certainly agree on providing lots of space to accommodate refugees closer to where they're fleeing on, by the way. I think it's the best solution. But using your own logic, we should just allow all the countries next to Syria to handle this, just as it's not your own country that does. So the only conclusion I can draw from your logic would be that Europe should just wall itself off?

Remember that Lebanon, for example, already has a HUGE amount of refugees.

 

[Audioboxer]

We did not talk about people being granted asylum.





Yeah this is something I really don't understand. If you apply the same logic of "no limits and if in doubt no controls" some people seem to have the view that for some unspecified reason it is our moral duty to take in an unlimited amount of people until society collapses and/or the nation is on the same low standards as the one they're fleeing from.

Well IMO it plays into what I railed on a bit earlier in this topic. It's easy for people to in discourse on forums, social media and with friends and family to take simplistic stances such as "you are immoral if you don't support all refugees" in order to feel morally superior about themselves. It takes next to zero effort to get praise for such grand remarks, and be seen as one of the good guys.

To try and take a hard look at a very complex matter often gets you baited and/or name-called in order to silence you and get you thrown into the camp with the "far right". It's a disgusting tactic, but one which works so well. When you end up having to spend more time defending yourself from accusations of being bigoted or racist, it takes more time away from whatever reasonable points you may have made originally for debate. See how Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Majiid Nawaz are called racists or bigots any time they talk about Islam. The point isn't to blindly agree with them, but challenge and debate, not try and silence using some of the pathetic tactics so called liberals are using these days for moral brownie points.

you make it sound like germany is on the brink of collapse.
for most germans the refugee "crisis" was, at most, an inconvenience.

Rapes, sexual assault and deaths will never be an "inconvenience".

 

[mnz]

So basically this guy was going to get deported but the tunis government did not accept him right?

Spiegel writes:

Seit Februar habe der Tunesier seinen Lebensmittelpunkt in Berlin gehabt, im Juni sei ein Asylantrag abgelehnt worden. Die Abschiebung konnte allerdings nicht durchgeführt werden, weil die Person keine gültigen Ausweispapiere besaß. Das Passersatzverfahren verzögerte sich, weil Tunesien zunächst abstritt, dass Anis A. tunesischer Staatsbürger sei. Erst heute sind die nötigen Dokumente laut Jäger eingetroffen.

Basically, he couldn't get deported because he didn't have papers. And getting new ones took so long because Tunisia disputed he is even a Tunisian citizen. The documents arrived today apparently, so his deportation might have happened any day now.
(Take all of this with a grain of salt)

 

[ittoryu]

If that is your descriptor of nationalism, yes. What use is a country which burns itself to the ground on some warped moral high horse? A country most certainly has to balance its ability to self-sustain with being able to securely and safely handle immigration. Let us not forget most of our Western liberal societies do not see beating, raping and abusing women as legal. So yeah, we should damn well fight to make sure anyone we are going to bring in is at least going to have such beliefs challenged if they hold them. Preferably be willing to be re-educated and understand any such offences within a short span of being let in should equal swift deportation.

It seems your nationalism argument would be best aimed at these countries who offered no help at all



https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/

Germany can still help refugees but do it in a way which allows them to protect their countries values, economy and ability for police forces and government to try and govern securely.

Re-educate?
Oh, this is interesting: can you please expand on how are you planning to re-educate someone? What does this re-education involve?

 

[Dalibor68]

Re-educate?
Oh, this is interesting: can you please expand on how are you planning to re-educate someone? What does this re-education involve?

There are already (not sure if mandatory, but I think so) value courses where things are explained like how homosexuality is normal here, female equality etc

*edit* I can only find it in regards to austria, but here from what I gather as a recognized refugee you have to visit 8h of "value courses" held by the integration fonds called "My Life in Austria: Opportunities and Rules".

 

[Violet_0]

Re-educate?
Oh, this is interesting: can you please expand on how are you planning to re-educate someone? What does this re-education involve?

getting them accustomed to the libarel values of the country they seek asylum in, women rights, religious freedom and so on

this is being done in a lot of countries now for quite some time, and there really isn't anything negative to say about it

 

[Audioboxer]

Re-educate?
Oh, this is interesting: can you please expand on how are you planning to re-educate someone? What does this re-education involve?

Well you first need to screen/question them when applying for entry into your country. Mainly to see if they sympathise with your liberals, way of life and country laws. I would expect that if I wanted to go live somewhere else. Of course a country would want to know how I viewed the world and/or how I might behave. This is called being sensible around who is potentially coming to live in and take part in your society.

As for those who don't just think, but offend, I think it should be quite strict within a short period of entering. Almost like a strike system. If you assault or rape someone within months of being granted initial entry, you should get deported. At the very least you should be tried and potentially jailed, not let go free. GAF is apparently a liberal board that is hugely pro-womens rights and freedoms, yet in many of these topics about cultural divides/differences some cant make their mind up whether to stand with the women, or stand with the immigrants they have such seemingly low expectations of...

Education on a grand scale is more about trying to assimilate and get people to sympathise with Western values. We cannot have women living in fear or being beaten or coerced. That is something we come down on hard with as it is from our own long-term citizens. Why is there a bigotry of low expectations that immigrants with individual choice cannot be re-educated if they come with values we detest? Don't tell me some of them don't, they do. Middle Eastern culture in general has some pretty poor views on women.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

getting them accustomed to the libarel values of the country they seek asylum in, women rights, religious freedom and so on

this is being done in a lot of countries now for quite some time, and there really isn't anything negative to say about it

Yeah, it's a pretty sane response. "Hey, you're going to be living here for a while, so here's all the stuff you need to know about." Not re-educate, but teach.

 

[cwmartin]

Nationalism is in my opinion a pretty disgusting problem. If this is how we all act towards each other in the name of our countries, then the nation-state system is a failure. "Just send them back" is not a solution to the problem. I don't think some of you are even reading what your typing here.

 

[cwmartin]

Almost like a strike system. If you assault or rape someone within months of being granted initial entry, you should get deported. At the very least you should be tried and potentially jailed, not let go free.

I have a really really really hard time believing anyone on GAF has ever said something contrary to this. If someone breaks the law in your country, they should be punished accordingly. That's obvious. Even the most pro-asylum or pro-refugee person would never say someone shouldn't be punished for breaking the laws of a country they are in.

This is a non-argument.

 

[Audioboxer]

Nationalism is in my opinion a pretty disgusting problem. If this is how we all act towards each other in the name of our countries, then the nation-state system is a failure. "Just send them back" is not a solution to the problem. I don't think some of you are even reading what your typing here.

It's easy to berate others solutions when you yourself don't provide your solutions. What do you propose to do with the people you are referring to?

When the government doesn't do anything that is when you get an attack like this. So I hope your answer isn't just going to be, leave them be.

I have a really really really hard time believing anyone on GAF has ever said something contrary to this. If someone breaks the law in your country, they should be punished accordingly. That's obvious. Even the most pro-asylum or pro-refugee person would never say someone shouldn't be punished for breaking the laws of a country they are in.

This is a non-argument.

Except it is an argument when the German government let people fly under the radar and/or go free??? It's almost as if some are avoiding reality...

 

[cwmartin]

Except it is an argument with the German government let people fly under the radar and/or go free???

He didn't go free. He was scheduled to be trial'd and held accountable for his crime. Everything he's done is illegal. He went underground, he ran away.

 

[Jasup]

Of course there are solutions. As the austrian foreign minister has proposed, the australian model of a) destroying smuggler boats at the shores and b) bringing those from the sea to refugee islands where they either get deported back or if their claim is viable sent to a country NOT of their choosing. As long as a boot on the ground of continental europe means a ticket to austria/germany/sweden people will not stop coming and dying in the mediterranian. Additionally to completely curbing this illegal immigration as much as possible the monetary support for support in the regions themselves has to be massively increased as well as legal possibilities created such as taking contigents directly from the war zones themselves (families, old people, overall those that are the weakest and need help the most, instead of 70%+ young men also from non-warzones all over the place) as the UK has done.

But many european politicians are still at "No but the morals!" stage while at the same time paying a turkish dictator to keep away refugees whatever way necessary from the balkan route so I guess it will take some more time and unfortunately possibly more attacks until this solution will come into effect.

I'll start with saying that it's not the "No but the morals!" -politicians who curb much of the proposals you said, but I'll come to that later. That is not to say all those proposals are valid either.

So the first one is destroying smuggler boats at the shore. By that you and Austrian foreign minister suggest the shore of the country these asylum seekers leave, meaning most often Turkey or another non-EU country as the rafts used are usually crappy single use ones. achieving this would mean that either a) the local law enforcement or military in that country would be the one doing these operations or b) the operations would be done by EU member countries. For a to work the "sending" country would need to be motivated to keep the asylum seekers within their borders - which is unlikely as when asylum seekers leave Turkey en masse for example it eases the pressure back in Turkey. If option b were to be implemented it'd mean EU countries doing police/military operations inside foreign (sovereign) nation - easier said than done.

The refugee islands you mention are hopelesly utopian idea too. I'm not going to go into human rights issue here, but pure politics and logistics of the issue. To build a refugee island you need to have some non-EU country to agree to give up their land for it, and basically give control of the land to the EU. Australia has a processing centre in Nauru, but the situation in Europe is a bit different than in the Pacific. It's unlikely many countries would agree to give their land for EU to use. We're also talking about building a center able to handle hundreds of thousands of people, meaning building the needed logistics infrastructure, providing the basic necessities and just shipping people back and forth.

The thing is these centers do already exist in a way. Centers where people picked up from the sea are being processed. However the problem is that the initial hotspots where the asylum seekers are first brought and registered and the reception centers are overflowing as resources are not up on needed level. When we're talking about the refugee crisis and uncontrollable immigration, we're talking about that overflow. If enough resources are not put into building that aformentioned island, it's not long before it too would have developed its own human smuggling industry.

You were talking about what the UK does, taking contigents directly from the war zones themselves more exactly. It has to be noted that it is what every EU country does and is bound by international agreements to do. But again, we're not talking about those things here, as those processes work as intented. What the problem is the overflow of people who we have little to no resources to process closer to home.

I wholly agree that monetary support and support for the regions hit the most is needed. Also there should be more cooperative effort by the EU to tackle the problem.

However therein lies the problem. To really get positive results would mean a) increasing cooperation between EU member countries, b) give power to appropriate EU agencies to coordinate the effort, c) transferring more money from the member states least affected by the crisia to member states most in crisis, d) have a stronger European foreign aid policy in place which would mean also more determined foreign policy in general. To achieve this would mean deepening the European integration and increasing the EU budget.

This is why it's not the "No but the morals!" -people who are to blame here. It's the nationalists and eurosceptics who are to blame here (and they are in many member state governments) who really can block any process that would end up losing their precious sovereignty, even if that was needed to solve larger and more persistent problems.

We know that to really tackle many of our problems in Europe we need to have more integrated and unified Europe instead of Europe with bickering nations. The real tragedy is that as the eurosceptics and right wing gains more ground in Europe, a truly unified efforts go farther and farther away.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Mostly because we live in an interconnected world - especially in Europe, and because refugee population movements are based on entirely different forces to, say, economic migrant forces.

Refugees are pushed out of a place. They're trying to get to a place of safety and security. They are trying to find a place that is not horrendously overcrowded - that's what happened in southern European countries. They're not being pulled in.

There's no abolition of responsibility here. It's just not how refugees actually work.

We almost certainly agree on providing lots of space to accommodate refugees closer to where they're fleeing on, by the way. I think it's the best solution. But using your own logic, we should just allow all the countries next to Syria to handle this, just as it's not your own country that does. So the only conclusion I can draw from your logic would be that Europe should just wall itself off?

Remember that Lebanon, for example, already has a HUGE amount of refugees.

Yes, I think the EU should have a very strongly policed, even militarized external border. If it's going to be a free-for-all of free movement once you're in, you'd better damn well be able to control exactly who is coming in.

 

[MUnited83]

It's easy to berate others solutions when you yourself don't provide your solutions. What do you propose to do with the people you are referring to?

When the government doesn't do anything that is when you get an attack like this. So I hope your answer isn't just going to be, leave them be.



Except it is an argument when the German government let people fly under the radar and/or go free??? It's almost as if some are avoiding reality...

Having a trial scheduled is totally "go free", sure.

 

[Audioboxer]

He didn't go free. He was scheduled to be trial'd and held accountable for his crime. Everything he's done is illegal. He went underground, he ran away.

From what I gather

and in April 2016 he was granted asylum

I don't think given his past he should have made it through the system at all. Secondly as I propose above I think serious offences committed within a short time-frame of being granted asylum/citizenship have a suitable justification to look at deportation.

I mean false identities and an ISIS sympathiser and the government thought he would just appear in court at a later date for an official trial? Cmon.

Having a trial scheduled is totally "go free", sure.

See what I just said. You think this guy is going to turn up for trial? If anything setting a date for trial probably pushed him over the edge to act now.

International terrorism agencies seriously just thought yeah this guy is coming in for trial and in the mean time will sit at home and play on the Playstation till the hearing date? At the very least this is a total failing of surveillance if they let such a person roam around until a trial date, and lose him going underground. He pops back up now and kills people and we're praising the German government for a trial date? Talk about the reason why people are debating current methods of dealing with these extremists.

If anyone wanted to take him seriously for a trial he should have been under house arrest or constant surveillance, or have an electronic ankle bracelet or something. If you say no to any sort of restriction like that then what is your justification for those now dead because he got the chance to go underground and attack?

 

[Kinyou]

Having a trial scheduled is totally "go free", sure.

If all you have to do is to just not show up it might as well be.

 

[-MB-]

I have a really really really hard time believing anyone on GAF has ever said something contrary to this. If someone breaks the law in your country, they should be punished accordingly. That's obvious. Even the most pro-asylum or pro-refugee person would never say someone shouldn't be punished for breaking the laws of a country they are in.

This is a non-argument.

The problem is many equate trying to cast doubt on reports of rape or at the least stay levelheaded with supporting actual rape committed by refugees against women. Which is obvious utter bollocks.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Yes, I think the EU should have a very strongly policed, even militarized external border. If it's going to be a free-for-all of free movement once you're in, you'd better damn well be able to control exactly who is coming in.

OK, so what happens to all the refugees that are being pushed into Europe if you had this?

 

[D4Danger]

Having a trial scheduled is totally "go free", sure.

hey, you better turn up to court so we can deport you. don't go to any of the other EU countries even though you totally can and nobody will stop you. oh and don't do any terrorism while we're not looking. thanks. p.s. who are you again?

it's a perfect system. don't change a thing.

 

[Buzzati]

In certain contexts they are. In others they are not. Nuance, wow, mindblowing.

Can you explain how refugees are a net positive for the economy in "certain contexts"?

 

[Audioboxer]

Some more from BBC

Police are searching a migrant shelter in the Emmerich area of North Rhine-Westphalia, western Germany, where the suspect's permit was issued.

Anis A is reported to have travelled to Italy in 2012 and then on to Germany in 2015 where he applied for asylum and was granted temporary leave to stay in April of this year.

Ralf Jaeger, the minister of interior of North Rhine-Westphalia, said on Wednesday that the claim for asylum had been rejected in June but the papers necessary for deportation had not been ready.

"Security agencies exchanged their findings and information about this person with the Joint Counter-Terrorism Centre in November 2016," the minister said.

Germany's Spiegel news magazine reports that the suspect was "classified as a so-called danger, a police category of people who are suspected of being capable of an attack, and who were therefore regularly checked".

Tunisia, Mr Jaeger said, had denied Anis A was its citizen, so the authorities had had to wait for temporary passport documentation from Tunisia.

"The papers arrived today from Tunisia," Mr Jaeger added.

At various times he is said to have tried to pass himself off as an Egyptian or a Lebanese, using the names Ahmad Z or Mohammed H (under a German convention, suspects are identified by their first name and initial).

He is said to have been briefly detained in August with fake Italian identity documents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38392128

Some news on victims

The only confirmed death is that of Polish lorry driver Lukasz Urban, who appears to have fought the attacker before dying of stab and gunshot wounds

Italian expatriate Fabrizia di Lorenzo, 31, from Sulmona near L'Aquila, is feared dead. It is understood her phone and metro pass were found at the scene

A woman from Neuss, near the west German city of Duesseldorf, is believed to be among the dead while her son, aged 40, is among the injured

The German authorities have asked the family of Israeli woman Dalia Elyakim, missing since the attack, for DNA samples to help identify her; her husband Rami was seriously injured

A Spanish student, 21-year-old Inaki Ellakuria, survived the attack with leg injuries. He has been tweeting (in Spanish) about his experiences

Thanks for trying Lukasz, you won't be forgotten.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

OK, so what happens to all the refugees that are being pushed into Europe if you had this?

They'll have to stay where they are, or go elsewhere.

 

[D4Danger]

Some more from BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38392128

how many more red flags do you need to take action?

 

[Audioboxer]

how many more red flags do you need to take action?

Or suitable action and in a faster manner. Or as I said above if time is needed something has to be done so that the person is under 24/7 surveillance (especially someone with damn ISIS links). This attack and the blood of innocents is proof that when surveillance fails or isn't carried out the consequences can be fatal. As I said above setting someone a trial date, especially a terrorist-sympathiser pretty much gives them an ultimatum and a deadline to attack. Hence why NOT keeping track of them 24/7 in some way is just asking for a terrible situation to play out.

A memorial service and "we'll do something... at some point" isn't good enough anymore. Liberals take note of the need for discussion and plans, or continue to watch far-right rhetoric get sympathy. People are getting tired with politicians just standing on podiums and say how sorry and shocked they are, when these kinds of attacks aren't one of a kind anymore. There is time for grieving and kind words and thoughts, but action for the future is needed. Look at how tired Obama got in America constantly coming out to say sorry again for another mass shooting. Vastly different situations, but the citizen apathy to the visual of the politicians saying sorry is a real thing. Hence the allure to opportunistic dick bags who stand on podiums or on social media and shout rhetoric. It's completely wrong but it is something different to the apathetic and same old "PR statements" we are used to seeing by now from liberal governments. Your kind words are noted and always appreciated, but it's about time we look at why attacks like this manage to get carried out by individuals who should have long ago been punished or caught.

 

[Jezbollah]

It all comes down to security processes and resources at the end of the day. If either failed or was found to be inadequate, then there are some major questions to be answered by the powers that be.

 

[Audioboxer]

The BBC has now added a photo

A warrant was issued at midnight. Details were not given but media reports say the suspect is a Tunisian man named only as Anis A, born in 1992.

His residence permit was found in the cab of the lorry.

It has emerged that he was reported to counter-terrorism police last month and had been facing deportation since June.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38392128

They also seem to confirm he was indeed facing deportation. Even worse then that his surveillance until it was carried out wasn't good enough. You corner a terrorist-sympathiser, tell them they are being deported and then let them slip into the shadows? Especially after a counter-terrorism report goes through... Terrible handling by the German government.

 

[ittoryu]

Well you first need to screen/question them when applying for entry into your country. Mainly to see if they sympathise with your liberals, way of life and country laws. I would expect that if I wanted to go live somewhere else. Of course a country would want to know how I viewed the world and/or how I might behave. This is called being sensible around who is potentially coming to live in and take part in your society.

As for those who don't just think, but offend, I think it should be quite strict within a short period of entering. Almost like a strike system. If you assault or rape someone within months of being granted initial entry, you should get deported. At the very least you should be tried and potentially jailed, not let go free. GAF is apparently a liberal board that is hugely pro-womens rights and freedoms, yet in many of these topics about cultural divides/differences some cant make their mind up whether to stand with the women, or stand with the immigrants they have such seemingly low expectations of...

Education on a grand scale is more about trying to assimilate and get people to sympathise with Western values. We cannot have women living in fear or being beaten or coerced. That is something we come down on hard with as it is from our own long-term citizens. Why is there a bigotry of low expectations that immigrants with individual choice cannot be re-educated if they come with values we detest? Don't tell me some of them don't, they do. Middle Eastern culture in general has some pretty poor views on women.

Man, I don't disagree with many points you are making, but you do know where the "re-education" concept was used, right?

 

[Audioboxer]

Man, I don't disagree with many points you are making, but you do know where the "re-education" concept was used, right?

If this is some remark towards Hitler or the Nazis then I would think given my postings and thoughts in this thread anyone who takes a few minutes to scope me out wouldn't come away thinking "yeah, that guy is a Nazi". Although this is 2016 where anyone not hard left is apparently a Nazi/Nazi sympathiser at all times... If any victims of the holocaust are still alive, they'd probably be disgusted at some of the modern day Nazi hyperbole, as if it's a moment in history to push lightly at some of the scenarios some are currently doing.

If I'm off key then sorry, I don't know what else you are referring to? I simply mean re-educate to replace past "education/indoctrination" with something a bit more forward thinking, liberal, or moral. I'm not talking forced either, you can choose not to behave differently. Potential deportation should be an outcome of that, if not legal action if we are talking violence and abuse. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot lawfully force it to drink. Nor should you be able to. If it chooses to dehydrate itself there should simply be legal consequences, or consequences which help protect your citizens from harm.

This man was a known danger to German society, and if he's caught and confirmed as the attacker, the German government failed to protect its citizens and deal with this guy.

 

[ittoryu]

If this is some remark towards Hitler or the Nazis then I would think given my postings and thoughts in this thread anyone who takes a few minutes to scope me out wouldn't come away thinking "yeah, that guy is a Nazi". Although this is 2016 where anyone not hard left is apparently a Nazi/Nazi sympathiser at all times... If any victims of the holocaust are still alive, they'd probably be disgusted at some of the modern day Nazi hyperbole, as if it's a moment in history to push lightly at some of the scenarios some are currently doing.

If I'm off key then sorry, I don't know what else you are referring to? I simply mean re-educate to replace past "education/indoctrination" with something a bit more forward thinking, liberal, or moral. I'm not talking forced either, you can choose not to behave differently. Potential deportation should be an outcome of that, if not legal action if we are talking violence and abuse. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot lawfully force it to drink. Nor should you be able to. If it chooses to dehydrate itself there should simply be legal consequences, or consequences which help protect your citizens from harm.

This man was a known danger to German society, and if he's caught and confirmed as the attacker, the German government failed to protect its citizens and deal with this guy.

I am not saying you are a nazi dude, I don't even know you so I wouldn't say that; the concept of re-education carries dangerous precedents such as Vietnam, North Korea and China. The words are important, and mabye a better choice would ensure that the message could go through.

 

[superdeluxe]

Seriously if the reports of the Polish guy who fought back and prevented even more deaths is true, We should be highlighting that fact.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It all comes down to security processes and resources at the end of the day. If either failed or was found to be inadequate, then there are some major questions to be answered by the powers that be.

There is a lack of resources and processes aren't being enforced. These major questions are being asked for years already and brought up when the refugee crisis was at its high point last year.

People are not being deported, people from safe countries are coming in and taking places from actual refugees, crimes are committed and not punished. Everyone could see problems coming from miles away, but bringing that up is somehow "far right" these days instead of common sense.

OK, so what happens to all the refugees that are being pushed into Europe if you had this?

How does any border work? You check it. If there are large streams of refugees, you put them in temporary places and check them there, instead of just letting anybody walk into a continent with no borders.

This guy was from Tunisia, he shouldn't even be able to get in for asylum, since he already is in a safe country. Apply from there, or be sent back straight away.

 

[Audioboxer]

I am not saying you are a nazi dude, I don't even know you so I wouldn't say that; the concept of re-education carries dangerous precedents such as Vietnam, North Korea and China. The words are important, and mabye a better choice would ensure that the message could go through.

Okay fair enough, don't leave what you mean hanging next time. I'll consider my choice of words more carefully but as I said I don't think many people would be jumping to any of those extremes after reading my posts. I've cleared up my thoughts anyway.

 

[Fritz]

The BBC has now added a photo

I keep fantazising about my fist in that face.

 

[| Praxis |]

Seriously if the reports of the Polish guy who fought back and prevented even more deaths is true, We should be highlighting that fact.

Yeah, dude is a hero if true.

I still find it strange he was alive for so long though, you'd think the terrorist would have just killed him straight away. Dread to think what went on in those hours leading up to the attack.

 

[paperboywriter]

Has ISIS claimed the attack?

 

[KDR_11k]

Rapes, sexual assault and deaths will never be an "inconvenience".

"And some, I assume, are good people"

 

[Audioboxer]

I keep fantazising about my fist in that face.

Hopefully at this stage his mugshot going out further helps the manhunt. With the amount of hours that have passed by now sadly he might be far away.

Has ISIS claimed the attack?

Yes but they are broadly claiming as they usually do

The IS group claimed the attack through its self-styled news agency, saying it was "in response to calls to target nationals of the coalition countries".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38392128

This new suspect does have a history of connections to ISIS though. Hence the criticism of the German government for losing track of him.