The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[ikalugin]

Yea, but it's the indoctrinated mindset and often they have no rights or choice to freely choose, obtain knowledge, etc. If you're convinced from birth such things are divine, people will do anything. This is how all religious systems controlled the masses for generations. The civil rights abuse and violence towards women in Islam has to be exposed. People should never suffer torture, even if they agree to it because they never got to learn any better.

Those practices are wide spread in secular (ie Kurdish) areas and in Egypt are done by medical practitioners. Thus they are not entirely based on religion or ignorance.

Now, if a subset of this practice is not health threatening and is done by consenting adults or by parents to their children, would you deny their right to do that?

If so, then I have to ask - would you enforce your views and customs onto the other people and countries the same way? And is that a morally right thing to do?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Absolutely, but does that mean that all Germans and Austrians should have been killed in order to prevent the rise of Hitler?

If that would have prevented the beast from getting bred - yes. The people from whose middle evil rose, should have paid the price all alone, if the foreign victms by that could have been saved. - For comparable logic, the nuclear bombs have been dropped on Japan. The Austrians and Germans were responsible for WWII - not the many Poles and Dutch, and French and Greek that were slain in their name.

[ikalugin]

I guess Soviets do not count?

[Skybird]

Like many others. Should I list all those millions by individual name? I go on strike then.

Serious: Stalin. What the Nazis missed, was picked up by him. No difference between him and Hitler. Other people had their monsters haunting them at home, too.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

No more massive mosques. No more special rights for Muslims (they can slaughter animals here in ways that are violating our animal protection laws but religious freedom trumps animal rights...). No more mass immigration of Muslims.
Immediate deportation of radical preachers and criminals without a German passport (regardless of religion). You come to this country you follow our rules, period!
That's how I would do it. No violence. No concentration camps, no harassment for the average Muslim John Doe who just wants to get by.

I would say that banning large mosques is going a bit too far, but the rest is fair enough, except for where you say no more mass immigration of Muslims. Now, what about if these are Muslims who are fleeing from the radical Muslims that you're looking to stop?
Going back to our 1937 Germany comparison of earlier, Jewish Germans fleeing Germany, do we take them in? Even though they're from a nation run by the Nazi ideology, but they are in fact victims of that ideology rather than followers of it.
How do you split the two?

So you also think we should stop being against Nazism? After all all that you said is also perfectly applicable towards Nazism....
Same thing, two scales.

Fair point, fair point. To be honest, I would say yes, in the manner in which Germany has prosecuted against Nazi symbolism and such. To be honest, many people in Germany are leaning towards Nazism anyway, just not towards Jews anymore since that's already been done. Look at PEGIDA, they're not against Jews and yet a keynote speaker (a Turk) at one of their rallies calling for the removal of Muslims from Germany says that "there were other alternatives - but unfortunately the concentration camps are out of order at the moment."
Now, no-one has banned PEGIDA even though it's heading down the NASDAP path, heck even the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany can see the problems inherant in it, "He stated that the fear of Islamist terror was being exploited to disparage an entire religion. For him this was unacceptable."

And what is the alternative? Just bending over and take it?

Have I ever said that? No, the alternative is rational reaction, not flocking to the extreme left and right as Europe is doing now, and as it did back in the 20s and 30s. Let the refugees come, police the borders certainly, restrict them if necessary, house the refugees in temporary camps and work through them carefully and with the help of all nations of the EU, before rehoming them equally across the EU.

Trump is an idiot and setting up camps is stupid (and I've never advocated that). I do have a problem with imprisoning extremists though and that is that they will get free again after a few years. Deportation is the only solution I see for them to prevent them from doing their thing in my country.

Deport them where though, and how do you stop them coming back?
I'll admit now that I misattributed the camp project to Trump, I've seen since that he wants them all banned from entering the US rather than put in camps, but he did want all Muslims to carry ID cards if I recall correctly.
That's a step down a dangerous road in my book, and that's how these things start, when we accept that such steps are necessary, when the extreme becomes the normal.

Read again. I've never said that all Muslims are evil scumbags, I repeatedly said that the ideology is evil.
It's the same as with Nazi Germany. Not every German was/is a scumbag but the ideology that ruled the place was highly dangerous and evil and made a lot of people commit atrocities. Just like Islam.

And the anti-Islam ideology isn't dangerous either? I find that reacting to extremism with extremism is hardly a wise choice of action.
I guess if we want to keep with the World War II analogies then yes, every Muslim is a threat because they follow the evil ideology of Islam and should be treated as such, being isolated from society and interned in camps until it can be determined that they're not going to explode. After all, that's what America did in World War II, it's what we did in World War II to any Germans or people of German descent, including the German Jews who had fled to the UK seeking refuge from Nazi Germany.
I thought we were better than that, but I guess I was wrong. It's just a pity that we have to watch history repeat itself again, but what else would I expect from the human race, I suppose?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I'm no fan of Trump but he hasn't advocated putting anyone in a camp.

This is correct, my mistake and I retract that statement of earlier.

[Buddahaid]

Just catching up. In comparison, the one big difference between the two ideologies is one is taken as God's will while the other is a political party. I don't recall Hitler ever calling himself god with power over people's afterlife.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Look at PEGIDA, they're not against Jews and yet a keynote speaker (a Turk) at one of their rallies calling for the removal of Muslims from Germany says that "there were other alternatives - but unfortunately the concentration camps are out of order at the moment."

You are just not correctly informed, and German media indeed have started a campaign on that, spreading a total misinterpretation of what Akif Pirincci actually has said and they did so by my most favourite rethoric overkill trick: quoting out of context. Oh how well I know this trick. If I would have gotten a dollar every time it was tried on me, I would be able to buy a new bicycle . An expensive one.

I am no fan of Pirincci, for reasons that do not belong here, however, the full quote is going like this:

"Offenkundig scheint man bei der Macht die Angst und den Respekt vor dem eigenen Volk so restlos abgelegt zu haben, dass man ihm schulterzuckend die Ausreise empfehlen kann, wenn er gefälligst nicht pariert. Es gäbe natürlich andere Alternativen, aber die KZ sind ja derzeit außer Betrieb.“

Translation: Obviously those in power have lost any fear and concern of the people , that with a shouldershrug now one can even recommend all Germans (objecting the indiscrimated mass migration into Germany, Skybird) to simply leave Germany themselves, if they do not want to obey as they should. There could be another alternative, of course, but unfortunately the KZs are offline currently.

An aggressive rethoric by the man, no doubt, but one that is typical for him.

This quote stands in a context. Pirincci at this part of his speech referred to an event from Octobre 14th 2015, when the Regierungspräsdident (governing president) of the city of Kassel, Walther Lübke, a CDU man, used a public assembly to tell the public and journalists that germans who disagree with Merkel's policy to let in everybody who wants to come, are free and would not be hinderd to leave Germany once and forever.



Pirincci is a provoking, obscene writer, he is know to use gutter language to make his points, because in Germany political correctness and collective duty to comply with ordered "voluntary" solidarity and consensus on opinions and views have been pushed that far that this is the only way to get noticed in streamlined mass media anymore. I may sympathise with what he has to say, but I do not like the way he delivers his points, he offers too open flanks for counterattacking his cause, by that doing it more damage than benefits. But one thing he is not, on this here can be no doubt: he is neither a Nazi, nor a blind Muslim-hater wanting to slaughter them in scores. That is bull.

Needless to say that our German quality media totally and completely ignored the context and full quote I explained. But what I give there is true, you can easily check it out via the web if you understand German. Pirincci, a Muslim of Turkish decent, knowing quite well what he is talking and writing about when writing about Islam, may not be a good speaker, and his provoking and vulgar gutter language is not everybody's taste (its the reasons I do not line up with him and his side), but one has to understand that this is stage-acting only, an extreme tool he uses, and often abuses and uses beyond the limits. Which shows imo that he is either not too clever, or or is helpless somewhat. However, his shamelessness is possible only because he was not raised in Germany, and it helps him to disrespect the demanded consensus of politically demanded "right" views and opinions. However, it is easier to paint him as an Islamophobic irrational man hater and Nazi sympathiser, than to care for trying to counter the points he makes in his essays and writings - and which are much more difficult to counter than just defaming the man and mobilizing the masses by telling lies about him.

Finally, Pirincci since then is in a huge legal offensive against media, organisations and individuals, sueing them for defamation, slander and character assassination. And he is winning them and already has won several of them. Another thing you do not read about in Geman quality media.

Personally I do not like him, but I defend him. its a case of defending free speech and fighting back slander and lies that gets used as weapons to destroy resistance to the wanted official political goals.

The speech, btw, was a very bad one anyway. He simply is no good speaker anyway, and too shy for the task. This makes the cointrast between his vulgarities and provokations, and his friendly, shy and polite appearasnce even more - well, it just doe snot match.

Stick to your essays and books, Akif. But don't hold speeches on public stages. Sometimes its better to just write songs - but leave the singing of them to others.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are just not correctly informed, and German media indeed have started a campaign on that, spreading a total misinterpretation of what Akif Pirincci actually has said and they did so by my most favourite rethoric overkill trick: quoting out of context. Oh how well I know this trick. If I would have gotten a dollar every time it was tried on me, I would be able to buy a new bicycle . An expensive one.

I am no fan of Pirincci, for reasons that do not belong here, however, the full quote is going like this:

"Offenkundig scheint man bei der Macht die Angst und den Respekt vor dem eigenen Volk so restlos abgelegt zu haben, dass man ihm schulterzuckend die Ausreise empfehlen kann, wenn er gefälligst nicht pariert. Es gäbe natürlich andere Alternativen, aber die KZ sind ja derzeit außer Betrieb.“

Translation: Obviously those in power have lost any fear and concern of the people , that with a shouldershrug now one can even recommend all Germans (objecting the indiscrimated mass migration into Germany, Skybird) to simply leave Germany themselves, if they do not want to obey as they should. There could be another alternative, of course, but unfortunately the KZs are offline currently.

An aggressive rethoric by the man, no doubt, but one that is typical for him.

This quote stands in a context. Pirincci at this part of his speech referred to an event from Octobre 14th 2015, when the Regierungspräsdident (governing president) of the city of Kassel, Walther Lübke, a CDU man, used a public assembly to tell the public and journalists that germans who disagree with Merkel's policy to let in everybody who wants to come, are free and would not be hinderd to leave Germany once and forever.

Ah, well, that makes sense. Yes, I can understand the twisted and subjective quoting problem...heck, sometimes I have done it myself, it's just too easy to refuse when you want to try to score a quick point.
One must admire the irony though, of a group of people feeling intimidated by another group of people, so they seek to return the favour. Intimidation following intimidation, and eventually that intimidation will turn to violence.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as a wise man once said.

[Skybird]

Pegida is a very mixed bag of people. There are rightwing nutters amongst them, true. But to minimise Pegida to just that, means to not understand why it has formed up at all. But like with the AfD, before it indeed was hijacked by rightwingers, it is easier to defame them all as Nazis and rightwinged extremists. The truth in that claim is of limited reach, but it is the easiest and most potent winning formula to brandmark and ban them forever.

However, I avoid both. Too inconsistent, too emotional, too self-contradicting, too uncaring and indifferent towards those abusing them for their own - different - interests. Whatever it needs to stop and bring down the EU and Euro and to contain Islam in Europe and the like - these two do not have the needed substance. Not at all.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I would say that banning large mosques is going a bit too far, but the rest is fair enough, except for where you say no more mass immigration of Muslims. Now, what about if these are Muslims who are fleeing from the radical Muslims that you're looking to stop?

As I've said earlier I'm not against taking refugees in. I just want them to go back once Syria is at peace again.

Going back to our 1937 Germany comparison of earlier, Jewish Germans fleeing Germany, do we take them in? Even though they're from a nation run by the Nazi ideology, but they are in fact victims of that ideology rather than followers of it.
How do you split the two?

In case of the Jews it's pretty easy. They by definition can't be part of the Nazi ranks so there should be very little danger to import that ideology with them. The problem is we're not talking immigration of Jews but immigration of millions of "average" Germans who might or might not be in with the Nazis and don't reject Nazism per se but just the ultra radical version. "Moderate" Nazism is ok to them.

Now, no-one has banned PEGIDA even though it's heading down the NASDAP path, heck even the head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany can see the problems inherant in it, "He stated that the fear of Islamist terror was being exploited to disparage an entire religion. For him this was unacceptable."

Funny just two months ago the central counsel of the Jews in Germany stated their fear of a massive rise of antisemitism because of the many Muslim immigrants....
http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/de/ar...der-juden.html

Have I ever said that? No, the alternative is rational reaction,
.
.
.
Let the refugees come, police the borders certainly, restrict them if necessary, house the refugees in temporary camps and work through them carefully and with the help of all nations of the EU, before rehoming them equally across the EU.

How do you work through them carefully? A lot of them have no papers and we know now that Daesh has most likely an official Syrian passport printer.

Rehoming them in the EU is a dream that won't come true as most member states don't give a sheet and leave it all to Germany and Sweden. So there goes the rational approach right there.

Deport them where though, and how do you stop them coming back?

If they have a passport send them back to their home country. If they have "lost" their papers make the person chose a country. If he refuses to pick one just send them to the Sahara. That will make them remember where they came from. Yes, that's quite nasty (and perhaps not that realistic) but it's the only way to not be played for fools by people who throw away their papers to prevent deportation.
Take fingerprints from all immigrants and filter those out that have already been deported once.

I'll admit now that I misattributed the camp project to Trump, I've seen since that he wants them all banned from entering the US rather than put in camps, but he did want all Muslims to carry ID cards if I recall correctly.
That's a step down a dangerous road in my book, and that's how these things start, when we accept that such steps are necessary, when the extreme becomes the normal.

Again, Trump is an idiot. (well, so am I, but that's a different story....)

And the anti-Islam ideology isn't dangerous either?

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's because I'm from a country that lived under Nazi oppression that I'm so vehemently against totalitarian ideologies. But what would have happened if no one had stopped the Nazis? What if people had decided to just let them do their thing and not to take an anti Nazi position? I think the world wouldn't look the same today and it would be ugly looking.

I find that reacting to extremism with extremism is hardly a wise choice of action.

Define extremism please. I'm not talking about killing. I'm not talking about mass imprisonment just for being Muslim. I'm not saying to tear down all mosques. All I say is that Islam should not become stronger here and prevent it from doing so by the means I've pointed out above.

I guess if we want to keep with the World War II analogies then yes, every Muslim is a threat because they follow the evil ideology of Islam and should be treated as such, being isolated from society and interned in camps until it can be determined that they're not going to explode. After all, that's what America did in World War II, it's what we did in World War II to any Germans or people of German descent, including the German Jews who had fled to the UK seeking refuge from Nazi Germany.
I thought we were better than that, but I guess I was wrong. It's just a pity that we have to watch history repeat itself again, but what else would I expect from the human race, I suppose?

So what do you propose? Let massive numbers of Muslims into your country and hope for the best? Hope that they will magically integrate much better than the other three million did 50 years earlier? What if they keep their tradition of having many children? What will you tell your great grandchildren when they have become a minority in their own country? "Well, we saw it coming but it was political incorrect to address or even do something about it, so please wear your headscarf at all times"?
Yes that is still far in the future but as it is it's just a question of when, not if.

[em2nought]

I'm pretty sick of generations that can't get anything right pissing on the western allied greatest generation for doing what they had to do to beat the dirt bags that they had to beat. If only we were run by the western allied WW2 generation today.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

As I've said earlier I'm not against taking refugees in. I just want them to go back once Syria is at peace again.

That's fair enough, although to be honest what would become of those who fled Assad? Sticky situation.

In case of the Jews it's pretty easy. They by definition can't be part of the Nazi ranks so there should be very little danger to import that ideology with them. The problem is we're not talking immigration of Jews but immigration of millions of "average" Germans who might or might not be in with the Nazis and don't reject Nazism per se but just the ultra radical version. "Moderate" Nazism is ok to them.

By definition maybe, but that didn't stop some of them from being so. Stella Kubler for example. What would stop Nazis sending agents posing as Jews?

Funny just two months ago the central counsel of the Jews in Germany stated their fear of a massive rise of antisemitism because of the many Muslim immigrants....
http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/de/ar...der-juden.html

Aye, sadly there is that problem, lots of fear around at the moment.

How do you work through them carefully? A lot of them have no papers and we know now that Daesh has most likely an official Syrian passport printer.

That's a tricky question and a lengthy process that would have to involve intelligence agencies and the like. Now that Daesh have a Syrian passport printer that's going to fubar things up somewhat. However, we already have a process which is used to weed out the real asylum seekers from the economic migrants, and the useful economic migrants from the useless ones.
Let's face it, if you were forced to flee Germany, as perhaps you think that one day you will, you would hope that another country would take you in and let you live there without intimidation or the continuation of the fear of persecution that you faced in Germany.

Rehoming them in the EU is a dream that won't come true as most member states don't give a sheet and leave it all to Germany and Sweden. So there goes the rational approach right there.

Aye, you're telling me. Stupid selfish idiots the lot of them.
Believe me, if it was down to me it would be a case of "If you want EU membership and all the benefits that go with it, then you have to take the downsides that come with it too." But many nations just want the good stuff and shirk the bad.

If they have a passport send them back to their home country. If they have "lost" their papers make the person chose a country. If he refuses to pick one just send them to the Sahara. That will make them remember where they came from. Yes, that's quite nasty (and perhaps not that realistic) but it's the only way to not be played for fools by people who throw away their papers to prevent deportation.
Take fingerprints from all immigrants and filter those out that have already been deported once.

Fingerprints is a good idea, deporting to the Sahara is perhaps a bit over the top but I can see your point. Might not be a bad idea to take DNA samples too.
Of course, this only works on the legal routes, and if someone has been legally deported then they won't come back on the legal route.

There's also the problems of those who have become state-less. I read a while ago about a man from...I think it was Iraq, who came to the UK seeking asylum, he was denied and sent back to Iraq but when he arrived at Iraq he was denied entry and was sent back to the UK where he's been in an detainee center ever since as his application for asylum is reassessed.
This happens a lot, the UNHCR has estimated there are around 10-11 million stateless people in the world, and you can be sure that a good number of the migrants who have come to Germany are in that 10-11 million category.
So where doe someone who has no country go when no country wants him or her?

Again, Trump is an idiot. (well, so am I, but that's a different story....)

Mate, we're all idiots, just in varying ways.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's because I'm from a country that lived under Nazi oppression that I'm so vehemently against totalitarian ideologies. But what would have happened if no one had stopped the Nazis? What if people had decided to just let them do their thing and not to take an anti Nazi position? I think the world wouldn't look the same today and it would be ugly looking.

That's a fair point, and I can see where you're coming from. To be honest, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, and if Stalin had not come knocking then Nazi Germany probably would have continued until it inevitably collapsed under its own chaotic energies. Look at the Soviet Union, no-one stopped them, and Communist China, no-one stopped them either.

Define extremism please. I'm not talking about killing. I'm not talking about mass imprisonment just for being Muslim. I'm not saying to tear down all mosques. All I say is that Islam should not become stronger here and prevent it from doing so by the means I've pointed out above.

I define extremism as the targetted discrimination of people in a radical manner, be it by killing, expulsion, or detention. The thing is, you can't say that you're targetting Islam without saying that you're targetting Muslims, all Muslims. It would be like saying that you say that Christianity is a radical religion but not all Christians are radical. The truth is that it's the other way around, it doesn't so much boil down to the writing, because if it did then every single Muslim would be walking into their nearest public place with some explosives and a machine gun, what it boils down to is the individual person, and their interpretation of the writing. Not every Christian is a vehement anti-homosexual, and anti-abortion preacher, and let's face it, most people who state that they are a member of a set religion follow not even half of that religions stated guidelines or laws, do they? Everyone has their own definition of what it is all about, and some of those definitions are violent and dangerous, no doubt about it.
So how can two people look at the same book and behave completely differently? They're both Muslims, although both may claim that the other isn't a proper Muslim, and if you take the stand that Islam is evil, then that means that since they are both self-confessed followers of Islam then they are both by definition evil. It's far too wide a blanket to cast.

So what do you propose? Let massive numbers of Muslims into your country and hope for the best? Hope that they will magically integrate much better than the other three million did 50 years earlier?

Well, has Germany become a Sultanate over the past 50 years?

What if they keep their tradition of having many children?

Generally speaking that tends to decline over time. We had a similar problem with people imigrating from Africa, but that reduced once they had access to better healthcare and contraception.
"But Oberon," I hear you cry "that still means that they're going to have a higher birth rate than us!"
Yes, this is true, it is estimated by 2030 Muslims in France and Belgium will make up over ten percent of the population...

Wait a minute...ten percent?

Is that all?

Yup, at the moment conversion rates in France have doubled since the 1980s with 100,000 French National Muslim converts living in France...out of a total population of 66 million.

What about Germany?

Germany has a population of over 81 million, and I believe about 11.9% of that population are migrants, although obviously that will rise by at least five to ten percent over the coming years because of the Syrian crisis. That makes Germany the third highest in terms of immigration rate, behind Russia and the United States, and just in front of, ironically enough, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Anyway, back to Muslims, and according to wikipedia, somewhere between 1.9 and 5.4% of the population of Germany are Muslims, somewhere in the region of 4.3 million.

So 4.3 million people are scaring a country of 81 million.

What will you tell your great grandchildren when they have become a minority in their own country? "Well, we saw it coming but it was political incorrect to address or even do something about it, so please wear your headscarf at all times"?
Yes that is still far in the future but as it is it's just a question of when, not if.

I think it would probably be my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren who would become a minority, and by that time we probably would have nuked ourselves into an early grave, immigrated to another planet or uploaded our collective consciousness into an electronic mainframe I would hope.
Besides, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great(x20000) grandfather would be mortified to see me typing a collective-bastardisation of European languages into this screen, not to mention a liberal smattering of Arabic and Hindu thrown into the mix.
He would probably be pretty angry that the nation I lived in worshiped the Christian God too instead of the Pagan Gods of old, and I wouldn't even begin to get him started on our culture.
He would probably be confused why we made such a big fuss about child pornography and pedophilia too.

In other words, don't buy into the alarmist propaganda that Islam is going to overthrow us in a generation or two, because, to be honest, it's very unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it would only be the continuation of a process that is as old as civilization itself, and our descendents eventually wouldn't even know the difference.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I'm pretty sick of generations that can't get anything right pissing on the western allied greatest generation for doing what they had to do to beat the dirt bags that they had to beat. If only we were run by the western allied WW2 generation today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_%28musical%29

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Let the refugees come, police the borders certainly, restrict them if necessary, house the refugees in temporary camps and work through them carefully and with the help of all nations of the EU, before rehoming them equally across the EU.



Deport them where though, and how do you stop them coming back?
I'll admit now that I misattributed the camp project to Trump, I've seen since that he wants them all banned from entering the US rather than put in camps, but he did want all Muslims to carry ID cards if I recall correctly.
That's a step down a dangerous road in my book, and that's how these things start, when we accept that such steps are necessary, when the extreme becomes the normal.



I guess if we want to keep with the World War II analogies then yes, every Muslim is a threat because they follow the evil ideology of Islam and should be treated as such, being isolated from society and interned in camps until it can be determined that they're not going to explode. After all, that's what America did in World War II, it's what we did in World War II to any Germans or people of German descent, including the German Jews who had fled to the UK seeking refuge from Nazi Germany.
I thought we were better than that, but I guess I was wrong. It's just a pity that we have to watch history repeat itself again, but what else would I expect from the human race, I suppose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Actually you separate the accompanied families from single young men of a certain age demographic; Isolate and thoroughly check out the singles first; it's not foolproof but it's a good deal better than the obvious current sloppiness which will leave post-Hebdo Europe exposed. Having, for years myself, checked every ID of every person; removed all Kirpan's from Sikhs entering Federal buildings (some objected on 'religious grounds') and personally inspected all rental bobtail trucks parked curbside by Federal buildings following Oklahoma City...it's slow, meticulous, and tedious; and there cannot be a single lapse. I recollect Ike kept an entire "army in captivity" following WWII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces The number of Germans surrendering to U.S. forces shot up from 313,000 by the end of the first quarter of 1945, to 2.6 million by April 1945 and more than 5 million in May. Most were kept so until 1948?!! The Russian POWs did not fare as well...some until 1956. Due to the vast influx and danger this is, unfortunately, the best mass-model we have. Naturally the caloric-food issue should not be as severe as 1945. Technology should considerably speed the vetting/background process. The "kindness coefficient" already demonstated should be superior as well. Moreover the refugees cannot fail to appreciate the terrific strain imposed and would likely cooperate-considering what they're fleeing: literally a Götterdämmerung of sorts. It's not a great plan but everyone has to be checked w/o exception and it's the low-pay front line security types who gotta do it.

EDIT: slight update since the Paris attacks....the extreme has become the normal...throw in the World Trade Center for good measure.

Originally Posted by Oberon

That might work, but it'll take a fairly big logistical effort, and one has to remember that it's not just single males that are involved in this war, the women often appear alongside their men too. Rarely mothers though, it would seem, so they might be considered a safe zone.
Of course, separating all the young men and putting them in one zone is probably just asking for trouble, so you'd have to split them up and again we're coming back to some heavy logistics. If you spread them out through the EU then you've also got to factor in that each country has a different set budget for their immigration processing sector, and also different budgets for security, which means that these people are going to receive different treatment depending on where they end up. I don't mean different treatment in regards to the likelihood of having their applications accepted (although this is also true) but I mean different treatment in regards to how they are regarded during their time in the process. I suspect that in Eastern Europe they will be regarded as little more than criminals, which means that if their applications are passed then they will enter the nation feeling like criminals, and likely slide into criminality or extremism.
It's definitely an approach though, but I think it might well be beyond the EU to implement, I mean right now it can't even implement a simple spreading out of the load.