The all purpose terrorism thread featuring plenty of allah akbar

[Wamiduku]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

I like the 1944 Syrian way to make them work . They are kept busy and don't hang around and breed trouble.

That was the French way, of course. Syria wasn't independent until 1946.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Immigrants that are ready to become productive members of society don't need a second chance.
A second chance in life when we allow them in. No second chances in crime.
We don't even give second chances to our own. One murder and you're off to jail (provided the police and courts do their job).

I Agree on treating them like our own people. A small crime - a small theft maybe - is no jail for our own people. They get a harsh warning - more or less - some public work and probation.

For murder there is no dispute.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Wamiduku

That was the French way, of course. Syria wasn't independent until 1946.

The camps were operated until 1949 afair. We'll see...

EDIT: Ok - in the article itself - an Egypt camp until 1948. Checking for Syrian data...


Edit: My UN site - as useful as ever
https://search.archives.un.org/middl...y-unrra-policy

Some Google books scans
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...B3DC4Q6AEIKTAG

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...B3DC4Q6AEILzAI

Can't find my nurse.

El Shatt - Egypt - with links (my Wikipedia link! - the article history goes to 2009)
https://www.geni.com/projects/El-Sha...gee-camps/1065

Still nothing useful for Syria - the camp was at Aleppo.

The Washington Post has adopted the topic too now - and links to an site with Polish refugees in Iran. No cross reference, no back up...
https://www.library.cornell.edu/coll...st/polsirn.htm

I think this is what one has to do with information provided by the media priests. Check and crosscheck the data - don't trust the media priest per se. Some common sense is helpful. Europeean refugees in Syria sounds strange at first, but considering that some population tends to flee the violence - where should they have fled to? Who has an agenda here? Follow the money is a standard principle.


Edit: Is your question answered, Dowly?

I try to get some sleep now. CU

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

France, now confirmed: one hostage dead, two hostages seriously injured and fighting for their lives, both terrorists dead.

French officials say link to IS is "very likely".

One of the men suspected of killing a priest at a church in northern France was being monitored by police and was wearing a surveillance tag at the time of the attack, officials say.
Prosecutor Francois Molins said Adel Kermiche, 19, was twice arrested last year trying to reach Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36900233

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36900233

"When they were eventually let go, the two attackers followed them out of the church shouting "Allahu Akbar" before being killed, Mr Molins said."

Nuthn' to do with Islam!

[HunterICX]

Archbishop of Westminster unites with Muslim leaders to condemn Rouen attack

Two armed men took six people, including a priest and two nuns, hostage this morning. They killed Fr Jacques Hamel, 84, by cutting his throat, before being shot by police. The Cardinal, who signed the statement along with prominent Muslims including Sheikh Mohammed Al-Hilli, Director of the Noor Trust; Imam Qari Muhammad Asim, Head Imam at Mecca Mosque and Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, Co-Chair of the Christian-Muslim Forum, said he was deeply shocked by the murder.
“To commit murder at a place where people gather in peace to worship adds another layer of depravity to the violence that we have witnessed over the past weeks. We pray for the courage to respond to all evil with truth, justice, and reconciliation,” they wrote.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/5891...n-rouen-attack

[Skybird]

First you spill oil, then you set it ablaze, and then you sell the inferno to the world as cold ice that is refreshing in hot summer.

And people buy it. In masses and masses.



Hopeless.

[Mittelwaechter]

Joey is beating a child, making it cry, causing the noise. But the noise is the child's fault! Solution? Let's beat the child for the noise.

Do we both see a problem here? Does it somehow have to do with the child?


“Do you want to say, the noise doesn't come from the child? I'm an child expert! Believe me, children are noisy.”

“No, I want to say Joey is causing the actual problem.”


http://abload.de/img/internetdiskussionkurn3oyi.jpg

Pic related.

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Do we both see a problem here?

Nope, it's just you who sees problems in the most inaccurate analogies right outta' Lala-land.

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Nope, it's just you who sees problems in the most inaccurate analogies right outta' Lala-land.

Surely there is no elephant in the room.

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Surely there is no elephant in the room.

Sorry to disappoint, but no, there is absolutely not. Nighty night.

[Mittelwaechter]

Why does Mrs. Merkel tell the Germans “We will manage it!”
Why is it good for Germany to welcome the refugees?

If I were a Barrow - let's say a building contractor - suffering from a shrinking population - only a few new houses are needed - no money to make by being paid by my workers - the isolation of homes with some chemical warmth is slow and even running dry. I could repair roads for taxmoney, bridges - infrastructure, but the taxmoney has been used for the banksters.

But I have influence on my politicians and my media friends. Some other Barrows are caring for weapons production, expansion, energy supply and “the future” - with their influence on their politicianss and media friends. There is some synergy! My interest is to build houses, but we need people for this. The other Barrows motivate some foreigeners to leave their homes - by destroying them. They come to Germany and ask for housing. Damn - what a coincidence.

I talk to my politicians. I am willing to build houses, with support of the taxpayer. Is at least some little subsidies available? I take care for jobs, you know? Great!
Some credit, provided by those with private money, shall finance the construction of the housings too - they shall have a return of investment, by receiving rental from the foreigners. Forever! The interest for their surplus money is so low, you know. They don't know where to put their money else.

My workers will pay me - as the taxpayer will support them in doing so. The rich landlords will get more money. The good system works. The politician tell the workers, their jobs are secure for some years. The economy is growing...

Germany is performing well!

If only there were no evil Muslims - those terrorists.

No elephant in this zoo!

[Mittelwaechter]

Originally Posted by Wamiduku

so once again I dismiss him referring to Hitchen's Razor: What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I knew I missed one...

So to use Occam's razor on Hitchens' razor: if no one supports your claim - your idea - the claim is wrong.
Could be the motto of the Spanish Inquisition. Priests caring for conformity.

Find some priest who is willing to speak in your favour.
Simply tell the priest's claims and you shall have no problem.

The priest doesn't have to act accordingly - he enjoys the power to claim by himself - because it is the word of God.
Politicians can do so too. You entitle them to claim whatever they seem fit.
God explains priests and politicians his desire - and they claim it in his or in your name.

Do you see the problem here? You can't explain anyone your desire.
You can just vote for the politician who shall tell you Gods desire and you may be free to chose your priest.
Occam: If your desire is not supported officially - it is wrong.

Damn - I have no link to support this idea.

But as usual I try it with common sense, some healthy distrust and some common knowledge/research.
Who's Hitchen? A journalist, a media priest? What does he try to explain? Does he try to fool me - by doing his job?

He claimed in 2003 - a time we had started to exchange our own ideas.


Hitchens' razor is the contradiction to sapere aude.


_________________________

Edit: Hitchens' razor is “widely attributed to him”. I may do his person wrong here.
Someone might have slipped him the quote, to hide the true source, while increasing the effect of the statement, profiting from Hitchens' respected reputation. Abusing Hitchens, to support the own agenda. The people shall respect only the claims from media priests, respect quotable, given and accepted concepts.
Thou shalt have no other God before me.

Edit2: This is his true quote: Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_dearest.html

What is he talking about? He was talking about logic - not own opinion backed by common sense and critical thinking. There might be logic involved.
And there might be experience, observation, facts, common knowledge...

“Hitchens's razor” is actually an (rough) English translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", (What is freely asserted is freely deserted.). It's not from Hitchens at all. He took a proverb and mixed it into his own statement.

Thus, Hitchen's razor can be applied to Mittelwachter's posts: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

No, it can't be applied. The whole quote is just the the contradiction of sapere aude (dare to think for yourself), to make us do exactly the opposite.

“Hitchens's razor” is actually an (rough) English translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", (What is freely asserted is freely deserted.). It's not from Hitchens at all. He took a proverb and mixed it into his own statement about logic.

Thus, Hitchen's razor can be applied to Mittelwachter's posts: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

No, it can't be applied. The whole quote is just the the contradiction of sapere aude (dare to think for yourself), to make us do exactly the opposite.


So my Edit1 seems to be valid. Someone is quoting Hitchens wrong - and calls it Hitchens' Razor.

Wamiduku, you have been tricked - and I think you don't understand Hitchens' Razor itself. Additionally you try to use its assumed message in the wrong context.
You kept me busy, but I learned something here. So I'm more thankful than mad.

__________________________________

Edit3: Richard Dawkins, a fellow antitheistic activist of the late Hitchens, formulated totally different, at TED in February 2002:

“The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not.”

This works fine and enables you to discuss new ideas - make claims without “official evidence”. You may think for yourself.

A refugee might have suffered from the exposure to violence, because we know of soldiers suffering from the same conditions. The unexpected behaviour could be caused by this, not by his real Muslim belief.

There has no official evidence for the statement to be found and linked. There may be no evidence available at all, by now no tests executed.
But we may agree onto this, just out of common sense.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Immigrants that are ready to become productive members of society don't need a second chance.
A second chance in life when we allow them in. No second chances in crime.
We don't even give second chances to our own. One murder and you're off to jail (provided the police and courts do their job).

Do you want all the Yugos back from here? That's how you will get them.
No seriously, I think we should differ petween petty crime and criminal offences. For the first thing you should have a second chance, for the second one, not.
I'm especially referring to Yugos, as Germany took a ton of them during the Balkan wars and many stayed. There were folks under them who were heavily trumatized as well, just as some had trouble adjusting and/or were prone to more violent behaviour.
The difference: you don't see any Serbs blowing themselves up for perceived injustices they saw. You certainly know better than me how happy they were about the NATO bombings back then and still are today. Interestingly enough, today those ex-refugees are even more against the current policies than native Germans are, just as most immigrants who came here by other means.

There are certain authoritan personalities and cultures where kindness is seen as weakness. Just as an Indian once explained to me: in India, if you give away free stuff, you're not seen as a generous guy, but as a sucker who deserves to be ripped off.

Just look at the scumbag who burned down the refugee shelter here in my home town, endangering 300 people who were living there: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36487781
This guy already had >30 criminal offences on his record. Given our competent police force here, you can triple the number for the real number of crimes he committed. It's no wonder those folks don't take laws seriously when they never experience the slightest consequences of their actions. That's one problem of our laws: they are intended for the normal population: if you have a job, you fear financial repercussions; if you come from a country which chops off your hand for stealing, or the police just beats you up, you laugh at a system which takes your name and puts you on the street afterwards.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Penguin

The difference: you don't see any Serbs blowing themselves up for perceived injustices they saw. You certainly know better than me how happy they were about the NATO bombings back then and still are today. Interestingly enough, today those ex-refugees are even more against the current policies than native Germans are, just as most immigrants who came here by other means.

They know Germany is the promised land for them and are affraid that terrorists are going to right turn Germany and they'll be targeted by the state and/or banished.
They adapted, they learned the law of the land, the language and would agree with what I wrote about immigration because they followed the ''harsh'' demands I wrote (aka if I can do it, so can you).