Guys, Europe wasn't destroyed. It never existed in the first place and was just a nice illusion payed for by Germany and France.

And how can anyone blame countries for not taking in refugees when the countries that do fight with skyrocketing crime and a population living in fear?
Why is it always our fault? Why isn't it the fault of the misbehaving people that no one wants them? Sometimes I have a feeling that self appointed guilt is all the rage in the West these days.:-?

I agree.

That's what you get if you silly Germans believe all the things that some failed Austrian painter said.

:hmph:

Because of that everything we do against the ''misunderstood'' like showing him the door as he is no longer welcome =

http://i.imgur.com/EoN7jfr.jpg

I can't remember anyone saying there should be a war against Islam....:hmm2:

Not at all it means we have to keep that problem away from our borders. What they do in their countries is of no concern to me but what they are doing here is. And again there was not a single post (that I remember that is) in this thread that called for a "final solution for the Islamic question". I think you are interpreting too much into what people say. No one called for violence, just for closed borders and swift deportation of troublemakers.

You use that phrase a lot but when you think about it western culture is their perfect propaganda ammunition too so if we don't always lay out a welcome mat for everyone that wants to come here I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in the hearts and minds of the middle eastern peoples.

About the navies. Just call the Australians, they know how to stop the boats.

I for one dont give a rats arse about 'signals' of some percieved intolerance or how control of a nations border might offend someone. Germany like the U.S.A., U.K. or any nation on this planet has a right to refuse entry to anyone they so choose wether they be sinner or a saint. If it so happens the ones being denied entry are Muslim immigrants from Afganistan, Morroco, Pakistan, Iran, Syria tuff titties.

We stop Haitians, Indians, Mexicans, Panamanians, Chinese, Vietnamese, you name it, every single day and I can gaurantee you nobody here is ever worried if we are sending the wrong signal or offending anyone.

What makes that easy for us is the signal we send out is one of border control. Unfortunetaly Germany didnt do that, but I see no problem if they choose to finally get their act together, round up these ne'er-do-wells and ship'em back where they came from and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.

I dont give a spit what IS thinks about it either

I think that you could look at it the other way. You presume that everyone is allowed in, except for case where there is proof that they are indeed undesirable elements. You could do it the other way - you could ban everyone from entering except the cases where there is proof that they are indeed desirable elements.

You speaking from experience? :)
No really i don't understand what you mean here.


Of course one could, and indeed a lot of "nations" do exactly that.
However it violates the UN treaty, if you take it seriously, as it is meant.
Everyone is innocent, unless proven otherwise. The idea is to immediately remove any human being from direct threat of torture, or to be killed. If it can be proven that this is not the case, he/she can be expelled, and sent back.

And that is a good thing.
But as long as some idiots like DAESH are running Amok, inverting the well-meant international laws, this only fuels nationalism of the lowest kind.


(i know i describe this in a sort of bumpy way, my english just isn't up to express it in better words)

They are innicent untill proven otherwise, yes. But being innocent of crimes and being desirable in the country (and thus elegible for entry) are two different things.

And that is where the national self interest conflicts with the humanistic mission. Do you value the national self interest higher? Do you value your cultural mission higher?

Yes, I was refering to using Australian experience in Med.

As to the instruments - you shift the burden of proof to the applicant and thus offload work load to him. For example - if you don't have your ID, you can't get into the country. Suddenly people would stop loosing their passports. Allowing people without valid documents check to walk around the country is dumb and dangerous and that is what is happening to the imigrants/refugees that come to Europe.

"...Asylum seekers have been sent back in lifeboats..."

Ah. No i don't think the EU will adopt that policy.

http://www.politico.eu/article/72-ho...greece-turkey/

"72-hours-to-launch-natos-migrant-mission-refugees-asylum-greece-turkey":

It appeared the tallest of tall orders. German government officials were given just three days to turn a seemingly unworkable idea — sending NATO ships to the Aegean Sea to deter people-smugglers from taking migrants from Turkey to Greece — into an official proposal with the backing of all NATO allies.

In the space of 72 hours, they had done it. By Thursday morning, Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary general, was telling reporters about a plan to begin the mission “without delay.”

The mission “will be tasked to conduct reconnaissance, monitoring and surveillance of the illegal crossings in the Aegean Sea in cooperation with relevant authorities, and to establish a direct link with the European Union’s border management agency Frontex,” Stoltenberg said...

When the idea first came up on Monday, it seemed unlikely that it would ever come to fruition: A military alliance doing the job of police forces and coast guard agencies; NATO meddling in the EU’s struggle to protect its maritime borders; the Americans getting involved in affairs they see as purely European; and, most importantly, Athens agreeing to an idea that originated in Ankara, when the two governments barely communicate.(...)

When I claimed earlier that western intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that up to 25% of muslims are indeed radical(ized), some here made the usual PC fun and didn't listen.

I just came across this video and thought it might fit the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

I guess the first convenient excuse will be to question his sources or numbers, but even if they would be half wrong, it still would be enough to justify the claim that islam itself is radical/evil.
For those who forgot what Sharia law means in a nutshell, I have a NSFW/graphic picture to remind you:

Do you still think Islam is "moderate" or peaceful?