European Migrant Crisis Megathread

[Ganos Lao]

That pretty much sums it up.

The signs are all there. The politicians don't really give a shit. Remember when the Mayor of Cologne's take on the controversy in her city was "keep men at arm's length"?

For me, that said it all right there.

And if they ever do give a shit, it's to feed their pockets. Why do you think the Middle East is the way it is?

Peace just ain't profitable. Everything - ISIS, the migrants, etc - it all amounts to cold, hard cash being more important than the reality that bodies grow cold in the morgues.

I'm personally just waiting for the next Breivik to start shooting up some joints somewhere.

Almost happened already. Xept with fire.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-34957358

That's not at all what I meant.

I meant a guy like Breivik "taking justice into his own hands" by killing a bunch of Muslims in their mosque like Baruch Goldstein did back in the 90s.

That pretty much sums it up.

The signs are all there. The politicians don't really give a shit. Remember when the Mayor of Cologne's take on the controversy in her city was "keep men at arm's length"?

For me, that said it all right there.

And if they ever do give a shit, it's to feed their pockets. Why do you think the Middle East is the way it is?

Peace just ain't profitable. Everything - ISIS, the migrants, etc - it all amounts to cold, hard cash being more important than the reality that bodies grow cold in the morgues.

I'm personally just waiting for the next Breivik to start shooting up some joints somewhere.

But the next Breivik is coming. As is the next ISIS attack if Europe doesn't do something about the migrants.

I'm waiting for it all to just happen, really.

Also, at this point, do we really want them to do something about them?

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

That's because whole 'Western world' is in decay. There's no real plan for the future. Just failing struggle to maintain status quo. There's no one able to say 'perhaps it's all wrong'.

That pretty much sums it up.

The signs are all there. The politicians don't really give a shit. Remember when the Mayor of Cologne's take on the controversy in her city was "keep men at arm's length"?

For me, that said it all right there.

And if they ever do give a shit, it's to feed their pockets. Why do you think the Middle East is the way it is?

Peace just ain't profitable. Everything - ISIS, the migrants, etc - it all amounts to cold, hard cash being more important than the reality that bodies grow cold in the morgues.

I'm personally just waiting for the next Breivik to start shooting up some joints somewhere.

Oh and how do these terrible status quo politicians profit from a migrant crisis? Do they get a bonus from the Bilderbergs and Rothschilds each time they do something seemingly dumb?

[Ganos Lao]

That pretty much sums it up.

The signs are all there. The politicians don't really give a shit. Remember when the Mayor of Cologne's take on the controversy in her city was "keep men at arm's length"?

For me, that said it all right there.

And if they ever do give a shit, it's to feed their pockets. Why do you think the Middle East is the way it is?

Peace just ain't profitable. Everything - ISIS, the migrants, etc - it all amounts to cold, hard cash being more important than the reality that bodies grow cold in the morgues.

I'm personally just waiting for the next Breivik to start shooting up some joints somewhere.

Oh and how do these terrible status quo politicians profit from a migrant crisis? Do they get a bonus from the Bilderbergs and Rothschilds each time they do something seemingly dumb?

I don't believe in those silly conspiracy theories you're referencing myself, so you'd have to ask someone else this question.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

Oh and how do these terrible status quo politicians profit from a migrant crisis? Do they get a bonus from the Bilderbergs and Rothschilds each time they do something seemingly dumb?

I don't believe in those silly conspiracy theories you're referencing myself, so you'd have to ask someone else this question.

I don't mean to be rude man. But from my perspective the statement that all politicians are self interested because they do unpopular things and the Middle East is fucked up, is illogical and more like a conspiracy theory.

[Ganos Lao]

I don't believe in those silly conspiracy theories you're referencing myself, so you'd have to ask someone else this question.

I don't mean to be rude man. But from my perspective the statement that all politicians are self interested because they do unpopular things and the Middle East is fucked up, is illogical and more like a conspiracy theory.

You're not being rude, so don't worry about that.

But I don't think such a position is illogical. I mean, if they really cared, then, for example, why is al-Maliki not on trial? Why is he still considered the legitimate Vice President of Iraq? He is a known war criminal and serial embezzler. He should be on par with Assad, and yet he's gotten away scot free just like Baby Doc Duvalier.

Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

I don't mean to be rude man. But from my perspective the statement that all politicians are self interested because they do unpopular things and the Middle East is fucked up, is illogical and more like a conspiracy theory.

You're not being rude, so don't worry about that.

But I don't think such a position is illogical. I mean, if they really cared, then, for example, why is al-Maliki not on trial? Why is he still considered the legitimate Vice President of Iraq? He is a known war criminal and serial embezzler. He should be on par with Assad, and yet he's gotten away scot free just like Baby Doc Duvalier.

Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I wouldn't say he's on par with Assad. But obviously, it's because no one wants to alienate Iraqi Shias.

[Allanea]

Europe will once again fall into fascism anyway.

No, Europe won't fall into fascism. The various right-populist parties are not really even close to being fascists except maybe for Jobbik.

[Ganos Lao]

You're not being rude, so don't worry about that.

But I don't think such a position is illogical. I mean, if they really cared, then, for example, why is al-Maliki not on trial? Why is he still considered the legitimate Vice President of Iraq? He is a known war criminal and serial embezzler. He should be on par with Assad, and yet he's gotten away scot free just like Baby Doc Duvalier.

Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I wouldn't say he's on par with Assad. But obviously, it's because no one wants to alienate Iraqi Shias.

But he is, though. You should read about all the shit he did to the Sunnis. Why do you think a ton of them joined ISIS despite having no affliation with radical Islam?

If Assad should go, so should he. How can we be serious about fixing the region if we can't even do that?

[Socialist Czechia]

Did someone considered, that perhaps, Putin and others like him in Russia are so succesful, because NATO still exists? That if it didn't exist anymore, there would be true democracy today, since nationalists would be without ammo (foreign threat)?

What is so successful about Putin?

And Russian nationalists are in opposition in Russia, Putin routinely arrests them and puts them in PRison.

At least someone knows that Putin and his supporters are actually moderates since regime under Zhirinovsky would be much worse.

And what's so succesful? lol.
Try to be autocrat of your own country for decades, then criticize degree of his success

[Imperializt Russia]

Calling people "rapefugees" because a tiny proportion of them has committed crimes is horrible and disgusting.

There is absolutely no debate possible of the fact that Syria and Lybia are actual war zones, and therefore people fleeing them are refugees.

Fleeing a warzone does not automatically make you a refugee. The convention does not mention warzones.

No, but the circumstances of both those warzones (and presumably several others) more than satisfy the refugee considerations.

The constitution of the International Refugee Organisation also specifically states that if it is not feasible to resettle refugees and displaced persons in their own country, other settlement should be found for them.

[Novus America]

Fleeing a warzone does not automatically make you a refugee. The convention does not mention warzones.

No, but the circumstances of both those warzones (and presumably several others) more than satisfy the refugee considerations.

The constitution of the International Refugee Organisation also specifically states that if it is not feasible to resettle refugees and displaced persons in their own country, other settlement should be found for them.

How? The convention says you have to be facing persecution. Not everbody in s facing persecution in those countries and there are plenty of safe areas. The fighting is localized. Especially in Libya which is more of a stand off than an actual war.

[Aelex]

Point is, that EU (EEC) was created to make these states one Super-Power together one day, since after loss colonial empires and irredentist dreams they are hardly more than local powers, never doing anything important without approval of USA.
Like, seriously, France without nukes would be hardly more important on world's stage than Poland or Sweden.

And for Britain, Commonwealth is much more important than any such continental project, due to historical and cultural reasons.

You really shouldn't group us with the lesser european states like, indeed, Poland or Sweden or the Czech Republic; because, even if these states are indeed hardly relevant without the E.U (actually, they're hardly relevant even WITH the E.U), neither Germany nor France nor Britain are really in danger of loosing their ranks as Great Powers.
As for France particulary, we don't really need our nukes to be relevant, we have retained our own sphère of influence in our old colonies (and especially in Africa with the Françafrique), a still strong soft power, a good military projection and one of the best economy in the world.
I mean, seriously, it makes me kinda smile how hard you're trying to make as if the three powerfulest european countries, which all managed to stay by their own in either the top 6 or 8 of the Great Powers, are hardly relevant without the E.U despite the fact that it's going against both facts and logic.

[Socialist Czechia]

Point is, that EU (EEC) was created to make these states one Super-Power together one day, since after loss colonial empires and irredentist dreams they are hardly more than local powers, never doing anything important without approval of USA.
Like, seriously, France without nukes would be hardly more important on world's stage than Poland or Sweden.

And for Britain, Commonwealth is much more important than any such continental project, due to historical and cultural reasons.

You really shouldn't group us with the lesser european states like, indeed, Poland or Sweden or the Czech Republic; because, even if these states are indeed hardly relevant without the E.U (actually, they're hardly relevant even WITH the E.U), neither Germany nor France nor Britain are really in danger of loosing their ranks as Great Powers.
As for France particulary, we don't really need our nukes to be relevant, we have retained our own sphère of influence in our old colonies (and especially in Africa with the Françafrique), a still strong soft power, a good military projection and one of the best economy in the world.
I mean, seriously, it makes me kinda smile how hard you're trying to make as if the three powerfulest european countries, which all managed to stay by their own in either the top 6 or 8 of the Great Powers, are hardly relevant without the E.U despite the fact that it's going against both facts and logic.

Perhaps there's difference between mine and yours definition of 'Great Power'.

'Great Power' is state, which is able to do basically anything it wants, even in today's world, obsessed by collective security and international solutions.
For example, if France was a Great Power, it's military should be able to reconquer French West Africa anytime it wants, if they felt necessity to do it and political power would be great enough to withstand international consequences.
Much like India or China today. If PRC launched invasion of Taiwan, I don't believe USA would start nuking fun (which inevitably would end with Mankind's destruction and OTL Fallout).
Same thing, if India invaded Pakistan (possibly with their own nuking fun, but hey, with no intervention outside).

[Aelex]

Perhaps there's difference between mine and yours definition of 'Great Power'.

'Great Power' is state, which is able to do basically anything it wants, even in today's world, obsessed by collective security and international solutions.
For example, if France was a Great Power, it's military should be able to reconquer French West Africa anytime it wants, if they felt necessity to do it and political power would be great enough to withstand international consequences.
Much like India or China today. If PRC launched invasion of Taiwan, I don't believe USA would start nuking fun (which inevitably would end with Mankind's destruction and OTL Fallout).
Same thing, if India invaded Pakistan.

I think there are indeed a good lot of difference between your definition and mine.
For me, and wikipedia it seems, a great power is :

A great power is a nation or state that, through its great economic, political and military strength, is able to exert power and influence over not only its own region of the world, but beyond to others.

By that criterias, we usually accept as being "Great Powers" : the U.K, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.

Your own definition, btw, makes little to no sense as no country is, or ever was, capable of doing what it want without anyone caring. Each time one country think it can bully the others, coalitions start forming and war eventually break out, usually ending to the disadvantage of the said country.

[Socialist Czechia]

By that criterias, we usually accept as being "Great Powers" : the U.K, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military either (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

[Aelex]

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military today (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

What you fail to understand is that, while economic power is not great power, military power IS NOT great power neither.
A great power is a country whose combination of diplomatic, militaristic and economic strength make able to control and influence countries in the whole world and not merely in it's region. Even a lack of one of those three factors can be counter-balanced by a superiority in one of the others.
In short, while Japan nor Germany don't have a good military anymore; they're still able to fuck up countries by other means and not merely by embargo, sanctions or others economical actions as such which make them still be, indeed, Great Powers.

[Socialist Czechia]

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military today (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

What you fail to understand is that, while economic power is not great power, military power IS NOT great power neither.
A great power is a country whose combination of diplomatic, militaristic and economic strength make able to control and influence countries in the whole world and not merely in it's region. Even a lack of one of those three factors can be counter-balanced by a superiority in one of the others.
In short, while Japan nor Germany don't have a good military anymore; they're still able to fuck up countries by other means and not merely by embargo, sanctions or others economical actions as such which make them still be, indeed, Great Powers.

Germany or Japan alone, or even combined, are hardly enough to ruin any country by any means. Hell, even sanctions and every other possible counter-measures so hardly pushed by United States and it's allies in UN are unable to change stuff in any country.
Did sanctions and embargoes (and other things) actually did anything to Iran? I see actual zero results. Losses on their side, sure, but no actual success of main goal.

Although Germany virtually controls EU, they are now unable to solve growing discontent, which will only further rise.

Guardian: 'Is Germany too powerful for Europe?'

Beck's chancellor sounds like Margaret Thatcher, who also prudently approached the balancing of government accounts as though they were a household budget. "There is one important difference," Beck says. "Thatcher was doing to Britain something the British electorate had voted for. What Merkel is doing to Europe has no democratic mandate."

[San Eulogio]

By that criterias, we usually accept as being "Great Powers" : the U.K, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia and the U.S.

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military either (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

Well, Belgium was considered a Great Power (the fourth) for some time, because their economical power was enormous in the early 1800s.

[Italios]

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military either (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

Well, Belgium was considered a Great Power (the fourth) for some time, because their economical power was enormous in the early 1800s.

http://zapatopi.net/belgium/

[Novus America]

Probably defined by someone who thinks that British Empire still exists Germany or Japan are economic powers today, but tell me how actually powerful on world's stage they are? Are able to inva...pardon me, liberate some country from it's genocidal dictators? Japanese have no desire to play Dai Nippon Teikoku again, and Germans are more and more unable to control it's satellite states in EU, having no great military today (resembling 100k Reichswehr every year more).

But shortly, economic power IS NOT great power (or superpower) automatically, just like that.

What you fail to understand is that, while economic power is not great power, military power IS NOT great power neither.
A great power is a country whose combination of diplomatic, militaristic and economic strength make able to control and influence countries in the whole world and not merely in it's region. Even a lack of one of those three factors can be counter-balanced by a superiority in one of the others.
In short, while Japan nor Germany don't have a good military anymore; they're still able to fuck up countries by other means and not merely by embargo, sanctions or others economical actions as such which make them still be, indeed, Great Powers.

For the record Japan has one of the best navies in the world. Often ranked higher than France...

Germany used to have a powerful army. In the 1980s. Now not so much.

[Socialist Czechia]

For the record Japan has one of the best navies in the world. Often ranked higher than France...

Germany used to have a powerful army. In the 1980s. Now not so much.

Did they used it for show of force in any case? Chinese todays builts airfields on articial islands in the middle of the ocean, and what Japanese tries to do against it? Nothing.

Yeah, just one partial example is necessary: today, Bundeswehr has 250 MBTs, while Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej have 1000 MBTs today, same as much greater manpower army reserves (almost 13 times greater, despite end of conscription same as in Germany).
In 1980s, West Germany had 3500 tanks, East Germany 2800 tanks.

Conscription should be totally reintroduced, though, since this trend was mistake in the first place.

Well, Belgium was considered a Great Power (the fourth) for some time, because their economical power was enormous in the early 1800s.

Later exploitation of Congo (which killed 5-10 million inhabitants) made Belgium economic powerful as well, but it didn't stopped Germany in roflstomping them afterwards. Twice.

[San Eulogio]

For the record Japan has one of the best navies in the world. Often ranked higher than France...

Germany used to have a powerful army. In the 1980s. Now not so much.

Did they used it for show of force in any case? Chinese todays builts airfields on articial islands in the middle of the ocean, and what Japanese tries to do against it? Nothing.

Yeah, just one partial example is necessary: today, Bundeswehr has 250 MBTs, while Siły Zbrojne Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej have 1000 MBTs today, same as much greater manpower army reserves (almost 13 times greater, despite end of conscription same as in Germany).
In 1980s, West Germany had 3500 tanks, East Germany 2800 tanks.

Conscription should be totally reintroduced, though, since this trend was mistake in the first place.

Well, Belgium was considered a Great Power (the fourth) for some time, because their economical power was enormous in the early 1800s.

Later exploitation of Congo (which killed 5-10 million inhabitants) made Belgium economic powerful as well, but it didn't stopped Germany in roflstomping them afterwards. Twice.

Hey, why not actually open a thread about this? Would be better to discuss this safely than to risk the dangers of a mod stopping the discussion due to being off-topic.

[Socialist Czechia]

Hey, why not actually open a thread about this? Would be better to discuss this safely than to risk the dangers of a mod stopping the discussion due to being off-topic.

Because it's not quite off-topic. European migrant crisis exists mainly because of inefficiency of EU, because nations actually doesn't want to be united. And silly German attempts to take virtual leadership in father-knows-best style doesn't work either.

[Aelex]

It's a result of anti-western narratives dominating universities and indoctrinating the middle class into self-loathing and contempt for their nations and history by casting western civilization as the root of all evil.
(Mostly from universities being dominated by super butthurt marxist professors who hate capitalism laying the groundwork for social sciences.)

10 Lies You Were Told About Islam

Especially is great the lie abou supposed No-Go zones in the West.

Despite the video itself being shit and quite indicative of the lack of standard you have, how's that in anyway responding to the point he was making?

[IndependentGreenland]

So yes, you think mass murder and terrorism is OK so long as a white person does it.

It has to do with ideology and not race. Did you ignore all of my previous post laying out why from my perspective?

I disagree with Anders Behring Breivik's actions that day, but agree with his manifesto's overall message. 2083: A European Declaration of Independence is just a magnificent piece of literature. I am serious when I say that I feel it has really opened my eyes to some truths about the current state of the world and why it is heading on the trajectory it is on.

Would I support a coup which would install the Progress Party or a more right wing alternative in Norway? Yes I would! Would I support Sharia being imposed on Norway? Hell no! I don't see what is even remotely inconsistent about that. Nearly everyone on here by now knows where I stand on the issues and I've explained why. It is not hypocrisy at all, it is what I see as what will make things more right in the world again.

Completely agree with this guy.