Well I don't think anybody thinks we can stop the 'in house' problems right now. But if you have a house full of people, and some of the inhabitants are murderers/rapists, the best thing to do is probably not open the door to another crowd, with 1 or 2 more in among them.

As I said, the only real solution that doesn't involve closed borders (Hell even if that happened it doesn't account for those with ill intentions already in the Countries) is to fix the problem at the root. But a lot of that responsibility should fall on the able bodied refugees. Of course we should help but it's not up to us.


If your house is a mess you shouldn't turn to your neighbour and demand that he sorts it out whilst you sit in his garden with your head buried in the ground.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:If your house is a mess you shouldn't turn to your neighbour and demand that he sorts it out whilst you sit in his garden with your head buried in the ground.

Why exactly is that house a mess, though? Who were the countries that armed the terrorists and groups to topple dicators or people in power to be able to get cheaper oil? A lot of the problems and civil wars are not really home made, but were caused by ulterior motives of Western (and Eastern nations. After all, Russia had their hand deep in Afghanistan, which was originally the reason my b the US decided to support the Taliban with weapons. And from then on they never got rid of the ghosts they called, but it is the people in Europe who have to suffer from the fallout of these interventions. Or do I need to tell who was the reason that the Iraq went south, too?

Blah, seen that one too many times for this particular lifetime. Everything is Europe and Americas fault and all of these different sects were holding hands and making daisy chains together before we decided we were bored one day and carpet bombed them.


I'll give you one thing, when some countries go in with 'good intentions' and topple a dictator, all it does is let these disgusting people run about unchecked. Sometimes it's better to let the lesser evil carry on. Destabilizing these places is a waste of time. And we should not bother.

So if it was up to me, we'd have let them deal with their own problems from the beginning. But I'm not buying the tinfoil theories on how we created this and how it's all of our fault.

In most walks of life it's up to you to clean up your own mess. Apart from these situations where everything is Europe/Americas fault.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:The only way to 'fix' this would surely involve fixing the places where these refugees are coming from. But that can't fall on Europes shoulders alone. It's for the most part not our mess to clean up.

This is exactly the problem. The most part is Islamic people's mess to clean. They have to be the ones that initiate and also eradicate it.

The problem here is i know for a fact that 171m of the 172m Islamic people in my country are downright peaceful, But even when we have terrorist attacks or any problem whatsoever they only go crazy on social media.

How do you expect mental patients and other disabled people who get easily radicalized to follow all of this?

After a terrorist attack, We'll have mournings, Candle vigils, Flowers in rivers but it needs to be Islamic people who need to come out with protests or at least messages on the streets and get noticed. Until its not on TV throughout the world or in the middle east nothing is going to happen, These extremists need to ridiculed specifically by their own kind publicly, us ridiculing them satisfies their own motive. The fact that these guys are so quite publicly makes a lot of people feel "all of them are the same".

Obviously they have condemned all of these organizations, What im saying is they need to be more vocal.

I have spoken to a lot of my friends about this, And a majority of them tell me probably the reason is that there are so many interpretations of the Quran, People are scared about how every other man would react to it to take the risk in different countries.

Unique wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

Unique wrote:not to a person that has just lost a loved one its not. Tbh if someone told me it's just bad luck that my family was killed by a bad apple I would do my best to take their head off.

That is why we have the "rule of law", not "rule of the most angry person with the biggest stick"; you have judges exactly  because of what you're saying.

What else are you suggesting? Legalizing vigilantism?

I'm not saying people can't be angry. I just say they can't be vigilantes.

your saying you would tell a person that has just had family murdered that it don't matter about that and it's more important to keep bringing people in. What kind of person are you.

I'll give it a try at the same hypothetical scenarios.

You seem to be disgusted by the thought of Viva and RWO saying that we need to endure the losses for the sake of the refugees to the families of victims.

But would you be so cavalier to tell refugees, whose families have been killed and houses have been destroyed, to turn around and go back on their thousands of kilometers escape because they share a passport with their families murderers?

What kind of person are you?

Refugee: "My dad died at the hands of ISIS, the bombed my town"
Soldier: "Go back"
Refugee: "Why?"
Soldier: "You have the same nationality as your dad's murdered"

Ironically, Unique could see his vision of revenge based justice implemented if only we'd let Islamists take over and install sharia law

I will help anyone anyway I can. But not if it puts my family at risk. Call me selfish if you like. But the truth is my family comes first to me.

rincon wrote:

Unique wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:


That is why we have the "rule of law", not "rule of the most angry person with the biggest stick"; you have judges exactly  because of what you're saying.

What else are you suggesting? Legalizing vigilantism?

I'm not saying people can't be angry. I just say they can't be vigilantes.

your saying you would tell a person that has just had family murdered that it don't matter about that and it's more important to keep bringing people in. What kind of person are you.

I'll give it a try at the same hypothetical scenarios.

You seem to be disgusted by the thought of Viva and RWO saying that we need to endure the losses for the sake of the refugees to the families of victims.

But would you be so cavalier to tell refugees, whose families have been killed and houses have been destroyed, to turn around and go back on their thousands of kilometers escape because they share a passport with their families murderers?

What kind of person are you?

Refugee: "My dad died at the hands of ISIS, the bombed my town"
Soldier: "Go back"
Refugee: "Why?"
Soldier: "You have the same nationality as your dad's murdered"

remind me again why my family should be put at risk because people can't live together without killing each other.

And why is it most of these refugees are fit young men of fighting age. You expect men to fight for their country and their women and children.

Unique wrote:And why is it most of these refugees are fit young men of fighting age. You expect men to fight for their country and their women and children.

Most of the refugees are not men of fighting age. But while we're at it, where are they supposed to fight? For Assad? Or rather ISIS? Or some other gang?

To be honest I can't see ISIS existing in the next 5 years. Not as prominently anyways. They might end up being as irrelevant as the Taliban but they are actually weakening quite fast. Was reading some articles about how they are losing 'fighters' and strongholds because of the amazing fight by the Kurdish, Syrians and Iraqis. They remain dangerous obviously.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21701721-jihadists-are-losing-their-caliphate-they-remain-deadl-islamic-stateless

This is one of the reason why the attacks in Europe have increased lately. They are looking for more fighters. Hatred breeds more hatred. ISIS have always been about us vs them mentality and the more they divide people the stronger they become. Psychological warfare was one of their initial tactic and hence why so many joined them from Europe. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore and they have resorted to desperation.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

Unique wrote:And why is it most of these refugees are fit young men of fighting age. You expect men to fight for their country and their women and children.

Most of the refugees are not men of fighting age. But while we're at it, where are they supposed to fight? For Assad? Or rather ISIS? Or some other gang?

look it up mate. There is more men aged between 18-40 than women and children

Chancellor Angel Merkel says refugees who carry out attacks in Germany mocked the country that took them in.
yet she wants to take more in.

But she said there would be no reversal in the policy of taking in migrants.

Mrs Merkel pledged at a news conference that she would do everything to clear up the "barbaric acts," find out who was behind them and bring them to justice.
has she not been doing that already then and what can she do to stop the problem getting worse

She said that Germany owed that not just to victims and relatives and other Germans, but also to other refugees.
what more does she owe the refugees. I think the refugees owe it to Germany to act like humans and also report anyone acting like a animal tbh.
Germany will do "everything humanly possible" to ensure security, she said, though there will have to be a "thorough analysis" before specific new measures are drawn up.
like what.

But she added that Germany will "stick to our principles" and give shelter to those who deserve it.
woman and kids deserve it. not young men who should be fighting for their country like all the young europian men did in the 2 world wars.
Mrs Merkel said terrorists wanted to reduce Germany's readiness to take in refugees.
no they don't. they want to fill Germany with as many terrorists as they can.

"The terrorists want to make us lose sight of what is important to us, break down our cohesion and sense of community as well as inhibiting our way of life, our openness and our willingness take in people who are in need," she said.
and the more of them she invites in the worse that will get.

"They see hatred and fear between cultures and they see hatred and fear between religions. We stand decisively against that.
and she does nothing about it.

this woman is a idiot.

Merkel is exactly right

Man oh man do i hate politicking and what i'd give to be privileged enough to not give a shit

Yep. Merkel is absolutely spot on there.

How many more people is Merkel willing to sacrifice before she realizes this red carpet approach to immigration, legal or not, just isn't working? Talk about gambling with people's lives

If she turns down the refugees, she'd sacrifice even far more people. Would that be humane?

1945, after WWII, up to 14 mio (!) Germans were on the flight and had to leave their homes in the Eastern Prussian and related areas ("Heimatvertriebene") and find shelter elsewhere. And you say with that history we should turn two blind eyes to the plight of other refugees?

Source: http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter-weltkrieg/article141112932/Als-Millionen-Deutsche-selber-Fluechtlinge-waren.html

There has to be a limit

So you open your doors for every single one of them and before you know it, Germany turns in to another version of the places they fled in the first place. And German citizens end up paying the consequences for a mess they had no part in creating.

The link I just added to my post above had a very interesting point. According to it, it was politically cool in the 19th century to start huge "cleaning actions" to relocate parts of the population of the multiculturally grown old states to turn them into racial more homogeneous states.

What no one expected then was that these racially more homogeneous states then bread real racism and intolerance against others and ultimately paved the climate for dictators like Hitler and Stalin.

Actually I'd like to know how many of the people here who are so against helping refugees actually know refugees first hand and talked with them?

I have the impression that the people who are most adamantly against them are the ones who have the least interaction with them.

Incidentally it is usually people in areas with the least number of people from other cultures around who are the most right-extremists or who have the most nazis in their midst. (The AfD and NPD in Germany are strongest in areas with the lowest number of foreigners, and it is usually similar in other countries with their right-extremists and racists).

There's a big difference between saying "I don't want to help anybody"

And saying

"Let's welcome everybody with open arms"

It's about finding a balance. And taking in Millions upon Millions of refugees is a terrible idea.

Tomwin Lannister wrote:
It's about finding a balance. And taking in Millions upon Millions of refugees is a terrible idea.

Hm no. Actually it's a great idea.

The problem is that you need some time to determine who actually needs help, and you can't do that when you turn away the people right from the start.

Or how would you suggest to go about helping "the right people"?

Millions and millions of unchecked, undocumented immigrants*

Might as well give them the keys to the tanks and paint a bullseye on your chest

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not Zig but some people are going to be in for a shock when they find out the real world isn't all hugs and kisses and everything goes to shit when you let masses upon masses of people in.

Again - how would you deal with the refugees that camp in front of your doors and starve and/or die from exposition?