Mass sexual assaults on New Year's Eve

[namnoc16]

Me too if we cant laugh at ourselves then who can we laugh at

Maybe that's why I've taken such a shine to you we are brethren! Us Micks gotta stick together. Also couldn't agree more about religion,after being raised Irish Catholic I consider myself a reformed Catholic. I believe in God I just think man and their rituals are silly and wrong!!!

 

[Bardeaux]

Yes we do have millions entering the EU. Germany has taken 1 million this year alone.

Source?

According to the UN, there have been 250k Refugees and 300k "asylum seekers" taken into Germany since 2013, as of summer 2015. Plus, Germany receives more refugees and asylum seekers than any state in Europe aside from France and Russia.

The UK has taken in about 117k. Out of a population of 61 million. Lebenon, a country of 4 million residents has taken in nearly 2 million refugees and asylum seekers. Our governments did this, not the Lebanese. It's our responsibility to deal with the massive clusterfuck we've created.

The problem is these "refugees" don't want to be allocated. They don't want to live in Albania, Greece, Spain, Poland. They all want to live in the UK, Germany, Sweden. Genuine refugees would be grateful for the chance to live in a stable nation. Which suggests to you something about the nature of these people coming over, does it not? Why would they predominantly select the UK, Germany and Sweden.. I'll leave you to figure that one out.

It doesn't really matter if they want to be allocated or not. They're not on vacation. This is why a cooperative effort among ALL EU nations (Including the United States) is necessary. To answer your question, The UK, Germany, Sweden and France probably receive more applications for refuge because 1) They have higher standards of living than Albania and 2) These countries have more resources and infrastructure available to support refugees than Greece or Albania.

And once they're in the EU and get an EU passport it doesn't matter where they were allocated, they can up sticks and move to the country of their choice, and again that will be predominantly UK, Germany and Sweden.

One doesn't automatically obtain an EU passport upon arrival. I believe Germany's law stipulates a 6 year residency before they can even apply for a German passport. Even if they were granted citizenship upon arrival, someone landing in Italy isn't automatically a UK citizen because they have an EU passport. Even if that were the case, I would suggest a more restricted system of travel within the EU, which again, would require full participation and cooperation between the states.

If we had to take on 4 million Welsh or Irish, we wouldn't have a problem. 4 Million Spanish, French, German. But 4 million culturally incompatible Muslims.. it is a disaster waiting to happen. End of story.

The UK hasn't taken a mere fraction of 4 million refugees. Period.

“At first, mostly families with children – who looked educated and spoke English – were coming here,” the officer told. “Meanwhile, 95 percent of refugees are now single men.”

And there goes his credibility.

 

[gh0stmAn]

Wow i have been on bluelight on and off for awhile but the extent of how many people in this section are extreme leftist is crazy. SS is right the far leftist really are detached from reality and anyone that does not agree with their ideology are ridiculed by them and spoken down to. This is the same tactic they used in communist countries like Russia (lenin) and China (Mao). Sometimes I wonder if these far leftist are the very essence of Cultural Marxism (aka Politically Correct culture). They want to ban anything that is against their ideas.. PC culture is one of the most insidious ideologies out there and i fear a lot of these leftist don't even realize they are practicing it.

 

[-=SS=-]

Source?

According to the UN, there have been 250k Refugees and 300k "asylum seekers" taken into Germany since 2013, as of summer 2015. Plus, Germany receives more refugees and asylum seekers than any state in Europe aside from France and Russia.

It has been widely reported that Germany has taken in almost 1.1 million refugees and migrants in 2015. The figure is quoted all over the place, including the BBC. The UN figure must be incorrect. The media would not be using the 1.1 million figure if it weren't the correct one.

It doesn't really matter if they want to be allocated or not. They're not on vacation. This is why a cooperative effort among ALL EU nations (Including the United States) is necessary. To answer your question, The UK, Germany, Sweden and France probably receive more applications for refuge because 1) They have higher standards of living than Albania and 2) These countries have more resources and infrastructure available to support refugees than Greece or Albania.

It does fucking matter. Why should the people of the UK, Germany and Sweden have to shoulder the most when there are almost 30 countries in the EU. Spread the load instead of forcing a handful of countries to host all the people. Not to bring this down to money but it costs a lot to put people up who are totally dependent on you for survival.. why should a few nations have to take that cost.

When there are millions of potential refugees you can not have all of them going to one or two nations. That is not a sustainable solution for the host nations and they have every right to reject that.

One doesn't automatically obtain an EU passport upon arrival. I believe Germany's law stipulates a 6 year residency before they can even apply for a German passport. Even if they were granted citizenship upon arrival, someone landing in Italy isn't automatically a UK citizen because they have an EU passport. Even if that were the case, I would suggest a more restricted system of travel within the EU, which again, would require full participation and cooperation between the states.

I'm well aware of how the EU works, I do live here. The point remains, once they are inside the EU it is only a matter of time before they are granted an EU passport and then they can go where ever they like. All the more reason for the UK to pull out of the EU so we can get control of our borders back. The free movement of people concept is a fucking disaster because as we can see everyone wants to move to a handful of nations. The UK is at breaking point already.. if we took on a million refugees like Germany has done we would be sunk within a year.

And there goes his credibility.

You're going to just dismiss someone who is dealing with the reality of the situation? Is that what you do, when someones observation doesn't fit with your narrative you just dismiss it as irrelevant?

 

[Bardeaux]

It has been widely reported that Germany has taken in almost 1.1 million refugees and migrants in 2015. The figure is quoted all over the place, including the BBC. The UN figure must be incorrect. The media would not be using the 1.1 million figure if it weren't the correct one.

Indeed, the media wouldn't skew numbers. I showed you mine (the UN), now show me yours.

It does fucking matter. Why should the people of the UK, Germany and Sweden have to shoulder the most when there are almost 30 countries in the EU. Spread the load instead of forcing a handful of countries to host all the people. Not to bring this down to money but it costs a lot to put people up who are totally dependent on you for survival.. why should a few nations have to take that cost.

When there are millions of potential refugees you can not have all of them going to one or two nations. That is not a sustainable solution for the host nations and they have every right to reject that.

This is pretty much exactly what I meant by saying there should be an EU wide cooperative effort, as well as the United States. I said this twice in one post.

I'm well aware of how the EU works, I do live here. The point remains, once they are inside the EU it is only a matter of time before they are granted an EU passport and then they can go where ever they like. All the more reason for the UK to pull out of the EU so we can get control of our borders back. The free movement of people concept is a fucking disaster because as we can see everyone wants to move to a handful of nations. The UK is at breaking point already.. if we took on a million refugees like Germany has done we would be sunk within a year.

Indeed, a matter of time. A matter of years. Also, I'm not particularly opposed to restricting the travel of non-citizen refugees within the EU. Again, where is this million number coming from?

You're going to just dismiss someone who is dealing with the reality of the situation? Is that what you do, when someones observation doesn't fit with your narrative you just dismiss it as irrelevant?

I didn't dismiss him, I dismissed his credibility. "95% of all refugees are single men" is a ridiculous accusation, I'm sure you can agree. As for the police officer in the article, I would tell him to do his fucking job and stop whining about what people think of him. If he's not using excessive force, if he's not harassing immigrants just 'cause, then what's the problem? He should have nothing to worry about. His job isn't to worry about gossip, it's to keep the streets safe.

 

[zzz101]

Wow i have been on bluelight on and off for awhile but the extent of how many people in this section are extreme leftist is crazy. SS is right the far leftist really are detached from reality and anyone that does not agree with their ideology are ridiculed by them and spoken down to. This is the same tactic they used in communist countries like Russia (lenin) and China (Mao). Sometimes I wonder if these far leftist are the very essence of Cultural Marxism (aka Politically Correct culture). They want to ban anything that is against their ideas.. PC culture is one of the most insidious ideologies out there and i fear a lot of these leftist don't even realize they are practicing it.

This

 

[zzz101]

...

650 cases in cologne alone now.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/just...egen-uebergriffen-zu-silvester-a-1071692.html

hamburg 153

http://www.shz.de/hamburg/silvester-in-hamburg-zahl-der-anzeigen-steigt-auf-153-id12421366.html

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

The UK has taken in about 117k. Out of a population of 61 million. Lebenon, a country of 4 million residents has taken in nearly 2 million refugees and asylum seekers. Our governments did this, not the Lebanese. It's our responsibility to deal with the massive clusterfuck we've created.

While I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think you're making the Lebanese out to be much more charitable than they really are:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/12...lebanon-doesnt-mean-syrian-refugees-are-safe/

 

[Bardeaux]

I wasn't necessarily underscoring the generosity of neighboring countries like Lebanon or Jordan, but the scale in which the situation is affecting them. Two million refugees spread over two million square miles in Europe has a much smaller impact than 4 million confined to small neighboring countries like Lebanon or Jordan.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

^ There is also the issue of cultural disharmony. Tell me this -- Do you believe that the UK could reasonably take 4 million refugees? Do you think they should?

 

[Bardeaux]

Could they? Possibly. Spread across the country, it would still be a strain.

I'm not suggesting the UK should take 4 million refugees. I feel like I've stressed this several times.

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

What's a reasonable number then... One million? As I said before, this is a lot like saving a drowning person. Take on too much risk and you risk sinking yourself. I think that a certain number of refugees do need to be taken, but I can also understand why many want to remain conservative.

BTW I realize that we're mostly in agreement here -- I'm just trying to define the number of immigrants that "leftists" such as yourself want to let into countries like the UK, and also the number of immigrants that "rightists" on here think are too many.

 

[Bardeaux]

There is no magic number, really.

The answer is to approach it rationally. First, how many refugees/asylum seekers are there, and who fits the criteria for refuge? That's a pretty logical first step, no?

Second, again, stresses the importance of international cooperation. We can't have three countries who are willing to accept refugees and 100 who aren't. The focus of the conversation thus far has been Europe, but as far as "should be's" go, this is a very narrow discussion. If every country in the EU, Russia, Canada, the US and other nations ran the numbers and cooperatively worked on who has the capacity to take aboard how many migrants, we would be in a much better position to address this thing properly. The United States has a much larger capacity for refuge than Luxembourg, for example.

What we're seeing instead is a mixed bag of European countries saying either "yes" or "no" to accepting refugees and millions more fleeing to the nearest border area. There's chaos where there should be order, and I think ideology has a lot to do with this.

 

[drug_mentor]

SS is British. I'm not sure how big a role Britain played in the supporting, training, and supplying ISIS, but Hilary Clinton, then Secretary of State, an appointed position, pushed hard to destabilize Assad by supporting ISIS. Of any public figure, Mrs. Clinton probably played the biggest role in creating this mess.

The invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with the current mess in the Middle East. I never suggested Britain was more responsible than the US, I was simply pointing out that Britain does have some responsibility for the current refugee crisis.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

only non-muslims can become 'slaves'

So they are enslaving all their rape victims first? How does that work?

 

[Bagseed]

ad the "95% are young men" - statement... an Austrian institute for studies recently published a report claiming that this is not true at all. yeah, a lot of the people are young men, but hardly 95%. I'll try to find the study later on.

ps: SS saying "the BBC said it, so it must be true" is quite funny. isn't corporate media what you usually call "left-wing" and lying? but when they say something you like, it has to be true apparantly

 

[tokezu]

I think you misunderstand what converse actually means in the context of politics over periods of time. It means to "protect (something, especially something of environmental or cultural importance) from harm or destruction.". That doesn't mean preventing change, just ensuring that a cautious approach backed by careful consideration is enacted whenever something radical or massively different is proposed.

Sorry I fail to see the fundamental difference to what I wrote.

Google Australia and boat immigrants. It works. You won't stop 100% of people making the journey but the majority will think twice before wasting their time, money and potentially their life.

As spacejunk already pointed out they don't just 'not let people in', do they? They try to make the experience for those people as horrible as possible, in order to scare off future refugees. Is that really what you are proposing?

When that photo was posted and when all the welcome bandwagon got rolling, and even well before that, I was always certain of my position on this topic. The photo did not phase me.

It didn't really phase me either, I mean it is a shocking picture, but anybody who needed such a picture to grasp what is going on had their head in the sand up until then. What I was talking about was how you categorize the people who act in ways you don't approve of. Here again you speak of the "welcome bandwagon" essentially saying these people don't think for themselves, but are blindly following Merkel. When I discuss this with you, I presume that you are a person who is, more or less, thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions. That's why I try to discuss actual arguments with you and don't resort to tell you to get off the "right-wing-refugees-are-bad-hmkay-bandwagon". Maybe you could be so generous to take into consideration that the people, whose actions you disagree with, *did* in fact think it through and just came to a different conclusion than you and are not some poor sheep, who are being manipulated.

OK, so where is the line, what is the limit and who gets to decide it. The governments clearly do not give a fuck about the well being of their own populations or they would have thought this whole thing through with greater clarity and pragmatism. Except for Hungary perhaps.

I don't presume to know where the limit is... trial and error, it's a very frustrating technique but the only one that works. I spoke about the difference between immigrants and asylum seekers, because it seems to me that you are always coming back to the question of "Shouldn't we should pick the ones we can use in our society and send back the others." As I pointed out, this cannot be applied to asylum seekers, we have a duty to give people asylum who are in need, regardless of how useful they are to us. If you disagree, you should be so honest and come out and say that you don't like the whole concept of asylum.
Oh and about "governments clearly do not give a fuck about the well being of their own populations"... to be honest this reminds be a little bit of conspiracy-theory-thinking, where when something bad happens there *must have been* some evil people who have planned it that way. IMO one should never underestimate how big a role plain old incompetence plays.

 

[socko]

True. So to answer the question of how many refugees, they should all be taken in, after reasonable screening. Who takes them in should first be those guilty of creating this mess followed by everyone else who profited from it in any way including politically. The same people (eg the Bushes and Cheney and Mrs. Clinton), corporations, and countries should pay for it too. Drain their bank accounts.

The invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with the current mess in the Middle East. I never suggested Britain was more responsible than the US, I was simply pointing out that Britain does have some responsibility for the current refugee crisis.

 

[-=SS=-]

True. So to answer the question of how many refugees, they should all be taken in, after reasonable screening. Who takes them in should first be those guilty of creating this mess followed by everyone else who profited from it in any way including politically. The same people (eg the Bushes and Cheney and Mrs. Clinton), corporations, and countries should pay for it too. Drain their bank accounts.

This is bullshit though, unless you intend to stuff all those millions of people into the Bush and Clinton residences. Why should the ordinary citizen have to pay the price for the political agenda of puppets in government who are totally beyond the control of the electorate? The USA government is the most blatantly bought off government on the planet. The UK government isn't much better either. You ask the man on the street about Syria or Libya and 9/10 they will tell you we should never have gotten involved in the first place, in any shape or form.. the public is not stupid after the whole debacle in Iraq.

Then there's the issue of geopolitics, which is far more complex and has hidden factors that the public don't know about. If Russia didn't have a vested interest in Syria maybe the whole situation would have unfolded differently? Who knows. Unfortunately for the Syrians they're on quite an important square on the chess board.

We can't take all the refugees. We're talking millions here. And more importantly, is that really the answer? These people want stability but more importantly they want home, and Syria is their home. I bet they would want to rebuild and make their nation flourish rather than be a guest in another nation. That's the most sustainable solution and what we should be working towards.

ps: SS saying "the BBC said it, so it must be true" is quite funny. isn't corporate media what you usually call "left-wing" and lying? but when they say something you like, it has to be true apparantly

Oh come off it, use your brain mate. We're talking about a highly significant statistic here, one which if they got wrong they would be smashed over the head with by other media outlets. All the other major news outlets are quoting the same figure as well, so unless you want to insinuate they're all lying? If I remember correctly the figure was taken from a minister or senior figure within the German government, which is far more credible than a UN figure for obvious reasons.

 

[zombywoof]

Is this really not what its going to come down to in the end

very interesting and eye opening article

http://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American Consumption.htm