The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar - Page 179

Rockstar · 02-26-17, 03:09 PM

Thats what happens when those extending invitations do not have to live with the consequences of their actions. How would you react if I invited a homeless man and his family to live in your house and on top that require you to make your already crowded house bigger to accomodate them? Dont get mad me because then I'll call you a right wing hitler loving nazi if you do. My advice would be to just shut up and take it. Oh don't bother calling me with any of your problems either because I'll be at my members only country club having tea dreaming up new ways to make 'my', oops! Im mean, 'your' world a better place.

Lol But Trump is a dictator! derp

Rockstar · 02-26-17, 04:30 PM

Oh ya I almost forgot. Once you've built that new addition and the homeless family has moved in with you. I'll be down for a photo op with them so the world know just how generous I am. And remember now say a word and we will lable you a hitler lovin nazi so just shut up and take it. Now if you'll excuse me I and my associates have to take a picture with that new homeless family we invited into your home.

Oberon · 02-26-17, 04:36 PM

Ah, so that makes it all alright then, jolly good.

Carry on everyone, those different looking people won't evict themselves.

Oberon · 02-26-17, 05:19 PM

To clarify the above, I do not think the mistakes of government should be inflicted upon the immigrant communities, that assaulting, vandalising or launching arson attacks on immigrant communities is wrong, simply because of an action that they had no control over.
And before I get attacked for it, I also think that the anti-government protests in the US that assault, vandalise and launch arson are also wrong, but I disagree with the Arizona bill because of how it is open for abuse.
Peaceful protest is one thing, riots are quite another.

There, I've said my bit, and no doubt I'm in the minority...I should really learn to not bother.

u crank · 02-26-17, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

To clarify the above, I do not think the mistakes of government should be inflicted upon the immigrant communities, that assaulting, vandalising or launching arson attacks on immigrant communities is wrong, simply because of an action that they had no control over.

I think most people here would agree with that. I do.

And you got that part right as well....the mistakes of government.

Catfish · 02-27-17, 03:22 AM

Just some thoughts.
There is enough space and even enough money for dealing with migrants in Germany. So saying that "they" take away "our" jobs, money, living space (Lebensraum beware!) or germans having to abstain from any luxury because of (any) foreigners, is not true. No one has to suffer here because of "them". Yet. Speculators are making big money here with building homes for refugees, a certain kind of war profiteers if you so want.

No families are being forced to accomodate foreigners here. It is even the other way round, if you offer an apartment for refugees, you have to read and sign masses of paper, explain at length why you'd want to do that, and the place has to fulfill certain standards like two toilets, fire protection requirements and all that (something that is not self evident in private homes). This process may take years(!), it is completely voluntarily, and most refugees are therefore stuffed into former military barracks. Packed together, unsure of the future, under often bad sanitary conditions, with growing frustration, this can of course become a breeding ground for radicalisation.

Terrorist attacks and molesting women, yes, happens, and there is no excuse. Although the number is small compared to good native germans also doing that. Terrorism has been on an entirely higher level in the 1970ies and 80ies here though, with the german RAF ("Rote Armee Fraktion"). Also those who assasssinate or take hostages are not the majority, as usual a few idiots give them all a bad name. I dare to say that terrorists who want to attack Germany or the "West" generally, would do that anyway, and find their way over the borders with or without control.
One more thing: As soon as someone speaks about "them" raping "our" women, killing children, terrorizing or stealing our "Kultur", they are on a direct propaganda path to war.

While i do not agree with Mrs Merkel in a lot of points, i think accepting the refugees and not closing the borders was a well-meant humanitarian reaction. A greater part of the population has also welcomed them, and helped (and still helps) them to accomodate and get necessary papers, german language courses, and getting their feet on the ground again. Most are not "economical refugees" but fled for dear life; you really have to listen to what they fled from to get a glimpse of what they lived through.

There will be always people who stage riots out of xenophobia or just being against "the system". And of course there are a lot of hating Neonazis here who thrive from every awful incident that can be connected to foreigners, to claim justification and reason for their (self)rightous cause, and action. Like the terrorists, they are not the majority.
You also have to see that it is not all "migration". While some are being accepted and integrated, a lot of the refugees want to, and will go back, when the war in Syriah is over, and the situation has calmed down.

It is obvious that some nations like what happens here, to have another reason or justification to reject refugees. Trump should have mentioned Germany instead of Sweden, much more going on here. But just of all those who caused the mess in the middle east now turn their backs, close the borders, and accuse others trying to help refugees? Despite what you may see in the media, there is almost no influence to normal life and citizens here. Even less in Sweden. Yes i know, tell this to the victims. I do not say it is an easy situation.

And no, Trump is of course no dictator. It may sound strange just of all coming from me, but i'd still say give him time. You know the media here are of course as biased as they are anywhere, you never heard about Obama blocking out Fox News back then for similar reasons, in the german media.

Bilge_Rat · 02-27-17, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

"Oh, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in ’t!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39096833

Agreed. That is pretty bad, those Germans really should be ashamed of their behavior.

Skybird · 02-27-17, 07:06 AM

"There is enough space in germany..."

My God, Catfish...

Geographcially maybe, we could invite all 7.3 billion members of the human race by that argument. We build megacities, we plaster all forest and meadows and build many skyscrapers. It could be done.

Catfish completely ignores the reality of culture, social value systems, identity feelings, tribal bonding. Logistics and supply not even mentioned.

While dealing mostly with mgrants from places tzat do nto share his total absence of own idnty at all, but insist on their identy feelign being very strong.

And that is a very different identity background.

Always denying oruselves we Germans must, ight, ctafish? We shall never be again what we are: ourselves. We must be living oly for the sake of the others.

"If the tolerant even tolerate the intolerant, than the intolerant will overcome the tolerant and rule them out, and with them: tolerance." (Popper, ironcially a very left-leaning thinker). What he says on tolerance there, can be out the same way about "identity", and what i usually call the "historically grown feeling of own identity":

"If somebody denies his own identity and only lives for the sake of the others identity, he will seize to be himself, and become the other. "

Before somebody accepts that as his recipe for global peace, I recmmend to look very close whethr one really is well advised to indeed wanting to embrace the other that unconditionally. I have seen enough of North Africa and the Middle East as if I could ever be tempted to want that again.

I only say once again: Rome, end of the first republic. It reads like a comment on the modern EU. Almst identical cionstellations, almost idnetical problsm - almost idnritcla behaviour by the polticians, almost idnetical behaviour by the crowds. The end was the demise of the first republic. It just could not hold the pressure the many foreigners put the home culture under. And so it broke.

Catfish · 02-27-17, 08:08 AM

Yes, i meant it geographically, but also socially.

The german population is a bit more than 82 million people.
Overall the amount of asylum seekers and people with "migration background" is around 25 percent in Germany, but a lot of them live here since 20+ years.
12 million people with german roots had to leave after WW2 and came to Germany as immigrants. So you say they do not count because their culture, belief etc. are the same as here. But that posed enough problems because of the sheer numbers, for accomodation and food alone shortly after the war, when all lay in rubbles. But we do not have housing or food problems now.

There are 16,000 applications from asylum seekers for january this year, do you really lose your identity and culture because of the last two years? And they are being accepted, because of Germany having signed the Geneva convention, which has not much to do with german law, nor the EU.

I certainly see your point, i also do not have much sympathy for e.g. Turkis Imams if they abuse their mosques for radicalising, or others demonstrating or spying for Erdoghan. But place them on the same list as e.g. Syrians?
"All foreigners, bad."

Regarding the comparison with Rome, the EU was and is never as united as the Romans, nor was or is it an Empire. Tribal bonds, if you want to get back to this we can instantly fall back into Bavarians, Suebes, Saxons, Chattes and so on. It was a process that made a nation out of tribes, and it will be another process to unite nations to something bigger. Do not forget traits and bias, but concentrate on the similarities.

ikalugin · 02-27-17, 08:29 AM

That feel when Skybird pushes you to be a classical liberal.

Dowly · 02-27-17, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

I only say once again: Rome, end of the first republic. It reads like a comment on the modern EU. Almst identical cionstellations, almost idnetical problsm - almost idnritcla behaviour by the polticians, almost idnetical behaviour by the crowds. The end was the demise of the first republic. It just could not hold the pressure the many foreigners put the home culture under. And so it broke.

That is a very silly thing to say.

Skybird · 02-27-17, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

That is a very silly thing to say.

No, its a historical fact, I just somewhat extrenmely summarised a long chapter right oin this, I do not translate a 600 pages book here.

At the time of the first republic stagnating itself to death, so to speak, the social circumstances of the Roman republic where such that the farms where mostly either abandoned or owned in huge numbers by only few - thus even rhicher - landlords and their armies of slaves. The former Italic than Roman farmers all either had to move to Rome itself, or had "died out" due to several costly wars in a row reducing the general population and even thinning out the Romans living in Rome itsels, also in the around 600 families whose leaders joined ranks of senators, and around 24000 "knights", both social ranks/classes were wealth-dependant (for knighthood you had to own at least 400 thousand and for a senator you had to own at least one million sesterzen). At the same time moral standards had declined - ironically due to the focussing on individual freedoms and rights that were made possible by the former wealth. This new focus led to an loosening of sexual relations, resulting in declining birth rates of the original Romans, which was compensated by more and more foreigners moving into the city: traders, craftsmen, and of course slaves. Since the growing "liberalism" led to slaves beign freed in higher and higher numbers, and by Roman law these former slaves immediately gained Roman citizenship with all citizen rights, you had a massive increase of what was foreign in Roman culturer and tradition, and an explosion of foreigners that were not originally ioman at all. The relation between original Roman people and originally non-Roman people rapidly tipped in favour of the latter. And you had a massive dysbalance between those who possessed wealth, and those who did not.

This necessarily led to a dissolving, a watering down of Roman identity and "old" values of Roman tradition. The state bogged down in reforms it could no longer bring through the more and more corrupt political system, opportunism and costly favours to the masses to bribe them for obedience and wanted election results did their share as well, and in the end the authoriuty of the state and the dominance of Roman identity within what was considered the realm of Rome, was so much under pressure that the old order broke down and the Caesars - the imperial order which effectively was a military dictatorship - rose. Of course, the principle of panem et circensis, bread and games, is to be mentioned here as well. The state could no longer maintain the support it had pledged to the masses, food supply was in danger (the free wheat allocations), security no longer guaranteed, and so the people of Rome followed Sulla and the men coming after him, Caesar, Augustus because these brought back law and order and stability, or so they promised. The price was costly, but without alternative, it seems. The old first republic was a thing of the past, and the imperial order arrived, under Augustus at the latest. The military reform under Sulla btw also was due to the breaking down of the old order: the legions feared that they could no longer recruit sufficient Romans, since there simply were not sufficient Romans anymore that could afford to serve in the legions, because before Sulla the warriors had to pay for their equipment themselves, like later in the european middle age it was once again for the feudal elite, and like it had been before in ancient Greece. With Sulla came the professional army, maintained and paid and equipped by the state.

Just a very brief, extremely "rude" summary, told by memory, but as I said, I have no intention to translate whole chapters from a 600 pages book here.

The parallels to the EU's situation today should even after this short summary be obvious. We have the same problems of social composition, eroding identity, mass migration, dissolving of own cultural origin, corrupt politics and narcissistic leaders, blocked reforms and the impossibility to see them through, and the raise of the strong "Führer" promising to heal the worries of the present by strengthening the values of the past again.

I cannot stress enough how very good that book, comparing the EU and the Roman first republics demise, is. Link and info somewhere above, in this and another thread.

Skybird · 02-27-17, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

Yes, i meant it geographically, but also socially.

The german population is a bit more than 82 million people.
Overall the amount of asylum seekers and people with "migration background" is around 25 percent in Germany, but a lot of them live here since 20+ years.
12 million people with german roots had to leave after WW2 and came to Germany as immigrants. So you say they do not count because their culture, belief etc. are the same as here. But that posed enough problems because of the sheer numbers, for accomodation and food alone shortly after the war, when all lay in rubbles. But we do not have housing or food problems now.

There are 16,000 applications from asylum seekers for january this year, do you really lose your identity and culture because of the last two years? And they are being accepted, because of Germany having signed the Geneva convention, which has not much to do with german law, nor the EU.

I certainly see your point, i also do not have much sympathy for e.g. Turkis Imams if they abuse their mosques for radicalising, or others demonstrating or spying for Erdoghan. But place them on the same list as e.g. Syrians?
"All foreigners, bad."

Regarding the comparison with Rome, the EU was and is never as united as the Romans, nor was or is it an Empire. Tribal bonds, if you want to get back to this we can instantly fall back into Bavarians, Suebes, Saxons, Chattes and so on. It was a process that made a nation out of tribes, and it will be another process to unite nations to something bigger. Do not forget traits and bias, but concentrate on the similarities.

You may want to meditate a bit about what it mans if the second generaiton of Turks living here were more conservative and rlegiousl yorthodox than the fiorst, and the third more conservative and relgiously orthodox than the second. You may want to think about what it merans that migrants from Muslim countires are massoively overrepesented in several crime categories. And I think I just not explain how very string many Turks feel about their still natvie Turksih identity, different to Germans feeling abotu theirs. Finally I point out that the birth rate of Turkish women in Germany IS HIGHER (!) than that of turkish women in Turkey.

Now compare that to the EU, that in the preambel for the EU constitution (no word games heren we all know that that is what it is intended to be, even if they do not dare to call it that) first wanted to loosely mention the meaning of Christian tradition for the foriming of modern Western ideals and vlaues, and the importance of the Greek-Roman tradition and its philosophy originally also was planned to be briefly mentioned. But then they thought that this might cause offence with foreign religions, namely Islam, and would ridicule the all-domiant in fluence of these on the unflding of Europe, so they skipped the passage mentioning the christioan tradition having influenced the European value canon. But then came others and said that pointing out the meaning of Roman-Greek tradition also would minimise the importance of the other cultures there are, and so the mentioned qualities the Eu wants to get associated with got unlinked form that as well and the frief mentioning of Greece an drome and their philosophies was deleted as well.

What remained is a preamble from the test tube, as I call it, a list of totally-unindividual, generlaised and highly universal values that due to their
universatality in the end claim nothing less to not describe just a national or a European unioform identity, but to speak for all manklind. In other words, the EU wants to be seen beside the UN as somethign like the UN.

The problem is that this asrtifical identity is lifeless, and not that much attractive at all for many people, since it coimpletes ignores the felt hostric roots of people, even denies and rejects them, even sits still and silent when Christian relgion gets offended, made fun of, ridiculed - while at the same time bombastically boosting attention for the sentiments and animosities of foergjn cultures who have had only limited, and often evry hostile,. destriuctive infoeunce on Europe. The relaiton of Islam with Europe is one of aggression, attack and conquest - and always claim for more of Europe, to be taken with vioence and force or any other meaning needed. And who cares to confront Islam with the mass killing of 80 million buddhists and hindus during the Muslim attempt to destroy the Indian high culture, like IUslam always tries to destroy all evidnece and relics of forteiogn cultgurs that are ot iutself?

The West, the EU masisvely use double standards here. And this is due to ideologic blindness, megalomania and a craving for poltically correct PR, and an uncomfortable, vague feeling of that one is weak and has not what it takes to stop this massive inrush of the foreign. Appeasment thus has become the parole of our time. And hoping for the best.

But as General Sharon said: "Hope is no good strategy." And as I say

: "Weakness is never noble or valuable, but always is nothing else than just: weakness." A loss in degrees of freedom is no gaining of freedom. A reduction of options available, is no strength, but weakness.

Its better to be strong and not needing it to be, than needing to be strong and finding out that one is not.

Dowly · 02-27-17, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, its a historical fact, I just somewhat extrenmely summarised a long chapter right oin this, I do not translate a 600 pages book here.

*SNIP*

None of what you wrote really support "It just could not hold the pressure the many foreigners put the home culture under. And so it broke." as the big reason for the fall of the Republic.
You are of course free to make that interpretation, but by doing so you ignore the various other, much larger, factors that contributed to the fall.

Oberon · 02-27-17, 02:20 PM

I think that another slightly more modern example to look at would be the Anglo-Saxon migration to England in the aftermath of the fall of Rome. It's often portrayed as an invasion when it was not all military based, but instead a change in population ethnicity, which started off as being Germanic Pagan in religion whilst pushing into Celtic Christian lands, however in the space of about a century they began to gradually convert to Roman Christianity (and some to Celtic too) and the interbreeding between the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons changed the ethnic make-up of the British isles completely.
I think that where we are right now is probably around the early 6th century, we've got mass-migration and clashes of ethnicity taking place, but at the same time there are multiple instances of the mingling of ethnicity that will in time change the basic identity of the nation. For the better, for the worse? Only history can tell us that, but at the time there were definitely winners and losers across the country, and it wasn't necessarily guaranteed that the Anglo-Saxons would become the dominant culture of England, certainly in the immediate aftermath of the supposed battle at Badon Hill it would seem that the Germanic 'invaders' were doomed to defeat, but we know looking back that things turned out differently.

Does this mean that we're under threat from the Muslim hordes? It could possibly be interpreted that way, if you are so resistant to change and the march of history it can definitely be interpreted that way. Or it could also be interpreted that we are just in another period of great change, and that what comes from this will be different to what once was. After all, in the last one hundred years Germany has undergone some massive upheavals and social changes, probably more so than any other nation in Europe. It survived these...I'm sure it can survive this.

02-26-17, 03:09 PM	#2671
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,971 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Thats what happens when those extending invitations do not have to live with the consequences of their actions. How would you react if I invited a homeless man and his family to live in your house and on top that require you to make your already crowded house bigger to accomodate them? Dont get mad me because then I'll call you a right wing hitler loving nazi if you do. My advice would be to just shut up and take it. Oh don't bother calling me with any of your problems either because I'll be at my members only country club having tea dreaming up new ways to make 'my', oops! Im mean, 'your' world a better place. Lol But Trump is a dictator! derp __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

02-26-17, 04:30 PM	#2672
Rockstar Rear Admiral Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 11,971 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Oh ya I almost forgot. Once you've built that new addition and the homeless family has moved in with you. I'll be down for a photo op with them so the world know just how generous I am. And remember now say a word and we will lable you a hitler lovin nazi so just shut up and take it. Now if you'll excuse me I and my associates have to take a picture with that new homeless family we invited into your home. __________________ Guardian of the honey and nuts Let's assume I'm right, it'll save time.

02-27-17, 03:22 AM	#2676
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 16,913 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Just some thoughts. There is enough space and even enough money for dealing with migrants in Germany. So saying that "they" take away "our" jobs, money, living space (Lebensraum beware!) or germans having to abstain from any luxury because of (any) foreigners, is not true. No one has to suffer here because of "them". Yet. Speculators are making big money here with building homes for refugees, a certain kind of war profiteers if you so want. No families are being forced to accomodate foreigners here. It is even the other way round, if you offer an apartment for refugees, you have to read and sign masses of paper, explain at length why you'd want to do that, and the place has to fulfill certain standards like two toilets, fire protection requirements and all that (something that is not self evident in private homes). This process may take years(!), it is completely voluntarily, and most refugees are therefore stuffed into former military barracks. Packed together, unsure of the future, under often bad sanitary conditions, with growing frustration, this can of course become a breeding ground for radicalisation. Terrorist attacks and molesting women, yes, happens, and there is no excuse. Although the number is small compared to good native germans also doing that. Terrorism has been on an entirely higher level in the 1970ies and 80ies here though, with the german RAF ("Rote Armee Fraktion"). Also those who assasssinate or take hostages are not the majority, as usual a few idiots give them all a bad name. I dare to say that terrorists who want to attack Germany or the "West" generally, would do that anyway, and find their way over the borders with or without control. One more thing: As soon as someone speaks about "them" raping "our" women, killing children, terrorizing or stealing our "Kultur", they are on a direct propaganda path to war. While i do not agree with Mrs Merkel in a lot of points, i think accepting the refugees and not closing the borders was a well-meant humanitarian reaction. A greater part of the population has also welcomed them, and helped (and still helps) them to accomodate and get necessary papers, german language courses, and getting their feet on the ground again. Most are not "economical refugees" but fled for dear life; you really have to listen to what they fled from to get a glimpse of what they lived through. There will be always people who stage riots out of xenophobia or just being against "the system". And of course there are a lot of hating Neonazis here who thrive from every awful incident that can be connected to foreigners, to claim justification and reason for their (self)rightous cause, and action. Like the terrorists, they are not the majority. You also have to see that it is not all "migration". While some are being accepted and integrated, a lot of the refugees want to, and will go back, when the war in Syriah is over, and the situation has calmed down. It is obvious that some nations like what happens here, to have another reason or justification to reject refugees. Trump should have mentioned Germany instead of Sweden, much more going on here. But just of all those who caused the mess in the middle east now turn their backs, close the borders, and accuse others trying to help refugees? Despite what you may see in the media, there is almost no influence to normal life and citizens here. Even less in Sweden. Yes i know, tell this to the victims. I do not say it is an easy situation. And no, Trump is of course no dictator. It may sound strange just of all coming from me, but i'd still say give him time. You know the media here are of course as biased as they are anywhere, you never heard about Obama blocking out Fox News back then for similar reasons, in the german media. __________________ >^..^<)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-27-17 at 06:26 AM.*

02-27-17, 07:06 AM	#2678
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,672 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	"There is enough space in germany..." My God, Catfish... Geographcially maybe, we could invite all 7.3 billion members of the human race by that argument. We build megacities, we plaster all forest and meadows and build many skyscrapers. It could be done. Catfish completely ignores the reality of culture, social value systems, identity feelings, tribal bonding. Logistics and supply not even mentioned. While dealing mostly with mgrants from places tzat do nto share his total absence of own idnty at all, but insist on their identy feelign being very strong. And that is a very different identity background. Always denying oruselves we Germans must, ight, ctafish? We shall never be again what we are: ourselves. We must be living oly for the sake of the others. "If the tolerant even tolerate the intolerant, than the intolerant will overcome the tolerant and rule them out, and with them: tolerance." (Popper, ironcially a very left-leaning thinker). What he says on tolerance there, can be out the same way about "identity", and what i usually call the "historically grown feeling of own identity": "If somebody denies his own identity and only lives for the sake of the others identity, he will seize to be himself, and become the other. " Before somebody accepts that as his recipe for global peace, I recmmend to look very close whethr one really is well advised to indeed wanting to embrace the other that unconditionally. I have seen enough of North Africa and the Middle East as if I could ever be tempted to want that again. I only say once again: Rome, end of the first republic. It reads like a comment on the modern EU. Almst identical cionstellations, almost idnetical problsm - almost idnritcla behaviour by the polticians, almost idnetical behaviour by the crowds. The end was the demise of the first republic. It just could not hold the pressure the many foreigners put the home culture under. And so it broke. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-27-17, 08:08 AM	#2679
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 16,913 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Yes, i meant it geographically, but also socially. The german population is a bit more than 82 million people. Overall the amount of asylum seekers and people with "migration background" is around 25 percent in Germany, but a lot of them live here since 20+ years. 12 million people with german roots had to leave after WW2 and came to Germany as immigrants. So you say they do not count because their culture, belief etc. are the same as here. But that posed enough problems because of the sheer numbers, for accomodation and food alone shortly after the war, when all lay in rubbles. But we do not have housing or food problems now. There are 16,000 applications from asylum seekers for january this year, do you really lose your identity and culture because of the last two years? And they are being accepted, because of Germany having signed the Geneva convention, which has not much to do with german law, nor the EU. I certainly see your point, i also do not have much sympathy for e.g. Turkis Imams if they abuse their mosques for radicalising, or others demonstrating or spying for Erdoghan. But place them on the same list as e.g. Syrians? "All foreigners, bad." Regarding the comparison with Rome, the EU was and is never as united as the Romans, nor was or is it an Empire. Tribal bonds, if you want to get back to this we can instantly fall back into Bavarians, Suebes, Saxons, Chattes and so on. It was a process that made a nation out of tribes, and it will be another process to unite nations to something bigger. Do not forget traits and bias, but concentrate on the similarities. __________________ >^..^<)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-27-17 at 08:22 AM.*

02-26-17, 04:36 PM	#2673
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Ah, so that makes it all alright then, jolly good. Carry on everyone, those different looking people won't evict themselves.

02-26-17, 05:19 PM	#2674
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	To clarify the above, I do not think the mistakes of government should be inflicted upon the immigrant communities, that assaulting, vandalising or launching arson attacks on immigrant communities is wrong, simply because of an action that they had no control over. And before I get attacked for it, I also think that the anti-government protests in the US that assault, vandalise and launch arson are also wrong, but I disagree with the Arizona bill because of how it is open for abuse. Peaceful protest is one thing, riots are quite another. There, I've said my bit, and no doubt I'm in the minority...I should really learn to not bother.

02-27-17, 08:29 AM	#2680
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	That feel when Skybird pushes you to be a classical liberal. __________________ Grumpy as always.

02-27-17, 02:20 PM	#2685
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I think that another slightly more modern example to look at would be the Anglo-Saxon migration to England in the aftermath of the fall of Rome. It's often portrayed as an invasion when it was not all military based, but instead a change in population ethnicity, which started off as being Germanic Pagan in religion whilst pushing into Celtic Christian lands, however in the space of about a century they began to gradually convert to Roman Christianity (and some to Celtic too) and the interbreeding between the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons changed the ethnic make-up of the British isles completely. I think that where we are right now is probably around the early 6th century, we've got mass-migration and clashes of ethnicity taking place, but at the same time there are multiple instances of the mingling of ethnicity that will in time change the basic identity of the nation. For the better, for the worse? Only history can tell us that, but at the time there were definitely winners and losers across the country, and it wasn't necessarily guaranteed that the Anglo-Saxons would become the dominant culture of England, certainly in the immediate aftermath of the supposed battle at Badon Hill it would seem that the Germanic 'invaders' were doomed to defeat, but we know looking back that things turned out differently. Does this mean that we're under threat from the Muslim hordes? It could possibly be interpreted that way, if you are so resistant to change and the march of history it can definitely be interpreted that way. Or it could also be interpreted that we are just in another period of great change, and that what comes from this will be different to what once was. After all, in the last one hundred years Germany has undergone some massive upheavals and social changes, probably more so than any other nation in Europe. It survived these...I'm sure it can survive this.