to Europeans: can you please try explain to me why your countries accept Muslims

[galdur]

https://www.rt.com/news/322963-isis-dolls-attack-foiled/

This is also going to happen in Europe if they won't be stopped.

Yes, and the crux of the matter is that they won´t be stopped and eradicated unless you have allies on the ground there doing the groundwork. First bomb, then mop up. The U.S. and NATO have only enemies (well apart from some mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and some medieval dictators in charge of their vassal states in the area) after systematically destroying and destabilizing country after country. So, nobody in their right mind is very interested in more of the same from those screwballs.

[Spendulus]

https://www.rt.com/news/322963-isis-dolls-attack-foiled/

This is also going to happen in Europe if they won't be stopped.

Yes, and the crux of the matter is that they won´t be stopped and eradicated unless you have allies on the ground there doing the groundwork. First bomb, then mop up. The U.S. and NATO have only enemies (well apart from some mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and some medieval dictators in charge of their vassal states in the area) after systematically destroying and destabilizing country after country. So, nobody in their right mind is very interested in more of the same from those screwballs.

This begs the question, really.  The question is which set of screwballs they get as Overlords, and which set of mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and medieval dictators wind up in charge of their vassal states.

Insult and malign the actions of war of those with honorable intentions all you want, then just shut up when you get the remainder.

[galdur]

https://www.rt.com/news/322963-isis-dolls-attack-foiled/

This is also going to happen in Europe if they won't be stopped.

Yes, and the crux of the matter is that they won´t be stopped and eradicated unless you have allies on the ground there doing the groundwork. First bomb, then mop up. The U.S. and NATO have only enemies (well apart from some mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and some medieval dictators in charge of their vassal states in the area) after systematically destroying and destabilizing country after country. So, nobody in their right mind is very interested in more of the same from those screwballs.

This begs the question, really.  The question is which set of screwballs they get as Overlords, and which set of mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and medieval dictators wind up in charge of their vassal states.

Insult and malign the actions of war of those with honorable intentions all you want, then just shut up when you get the remainder.

Well, way worse than useless screwballs have been conducting this so called war on terrorists since 2001. Most clueless morons have given up on excusing the train wrecks and the boom in terrorism that this has left.

[Spendulus]

https://www.rt.com/news/322963-isis-dolls-attack-foiled/

This is also going to happen in Europe if they won't be stopped.

Yes, and the crux of the matter is that they won´t be stopped and eradicated unless you have allies on the ground there doing the groundwork. First bomb, then mop up. The U.S. and NATO have only enemies (well apart from some mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and some medieval dictators in charge of their vassal states in the area) after systematically destroying and destabilizing country after country. So, nobody in their right mind is very interested in more of the same from those screwballs.

This begs the question, really.  The question is which set of screwballs they get as Overlords, and which set of mercenary garbage and moderate terrorists and medieval dictators wind up in charge of their vassal states.

Insult and malign the actions of war of those with honorable intentions all you want, then just shut up when you get the remainder.

Yeah, I tend to be rather dismissive of lofty, smug and self righteous comments by, as might be said, by armchair generals.

I have criticism of US action, for example, but some of the worst decisions and actions come in aftermarket of criticism.  Bush- "anyone's better."  "Hope and change."  France and Germany were in love with the Bamster, he created the vacuums, now look what they got. 

By the way, the US doesn't make a very good Overlord, that takes whole different type. 
Well, way worse than useless screwballs have been conducting this so called war on terrorists since 2001. Most clueless morons have given up on excusing the train wrecks and the boom in terrorism that this has left.

[galdur]

Hahaha, talk about projecting one´s dumbness on others. This yokel calls other people airmchair generals. Right.

I guess truth hurts.

[Spendulus]

Hahaha, talk about projecting one´s dumbness on others. This yokel calls other people airmchair generals. Right.

I guess truth hurts.

If you like, consider my comments critical of our mutual dumbness.  If not, then consider the plain and simple words of my comments.  Makes no difference to me.

[galdur]

It isn´t just in the Middle-East that the U.S./NATO has been busy bolstering terrorism by wagering war against it and creating it directly. The U.S. set up a special African Command in the last years of the Bush administration and have since then been at war with terrorism all over Africa, at least where there´s something worth stealing. The very predictable and familiar result: A boom in terrorism.

[Spendulus]

It isn´t just in the Middle-East that the U.S./NATO has been busy bolstering terrorism by wagering war against it and creating it directly. The U.S. set up a special African Command in the last years of the Bush administration and have since then been at war with terrorism all over Africa, at least where there´s something worth stealing. The very predictable and familiar result: A boom in terrorism.

No, if you can show some cause and effect relation between American actions in Africa, and any alleged "boom in terrorism," go ahead and try.  Africa has its own unique dynamics, sub Saharan and northern.  And it's unusual outcome where "fighting terrorism" creates a vacuum of power, so my comments remain.

Sure does look like armchair general you excel, in but when questioned, revert to ad hominem.  Hey just blame the US, nobody will question it.  Right?

Coleman is knowledgeable about African, wonder what he's got to say about this.

[galdur]

Think I´ll put this guy on ice for a few months at least. It´s utterly devoid of any useful content.

[practicaldreamer]

The U.S. set up a special African Command in the last years of the Bush administration and have since then been at war with terrorism all over Africa, at least where there´s something worth stealing.

The Untold Story of Mali and Oil

Same story in Nigeria, Libya (obviously), Angola ....

[Spendulus]

Think I´ll put this guy on ice for a few months at least. It´s utterly devoid of any useful content.

Figures.  You don't like your bullshit being questioned.

Can't have that.

[jasonjm]

yes there is an oil issue at play, but explain how the 4 muslims in growing up in Britain were in any way impacted by oil wars in the middle east? They were not. They obviously felt more Muslim than British. I am not saying the oil wars are right, they are not, but in this case those 4 guys were not displaced families from US bombs in iraq or similar.

You make some valid points - but let me make one thing clear - I am in no way an apologist for their actions. Far from it - they have forfeited their rights to life as far as I'm concerned. No, its just that I am more concerned with getting at the root cause of the problem - I actually don't want to see a repitition of what occurred last Friday.

And to my mind, the root cause is not Islam. For years they told us that the root cause of the troubles in Ireland was religion also - in that case it was supposed to be Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
 Of course, this was just a red herring, the legitimation that was expediant to maintain an exploitative domination - the root of the problem was British emperialism. But if you say that out loud in the current climate you are supposed to be some kind of lilly livered nancy boy.


     I mean, I know there are those among us that have a much stronger stomach than me, and a more sterling backbone - they are most likely calling for co-ordinated airstrikes and boots on the ground etc etc. as we speak.
    Whereas I personally have been calling for a more honest debate on the issues on foreign policy re. the middle east for a long time, certainly way before 9/11. I have had, and do have, relatives serving out there - so I have a personal vested interest you could say.

   Off to bed for me now. I'll just say this before I go - history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.

  All you have to work out is, are you tragic - or are you a joke ?

I do not think we should have ever put one western boot in the middle east, ever. Air strikes are a waste of time too. The only legitimate targets are attacking WMD facilities (not imaginary ones, real ones). And by that I mean attacking the actual WMD facility itself, not the entire country. but that is just my opinion.

In the context of war, air strikes are certainly not a waste of time, but an essential aspect of any winning strategy.  Your talk about "legitimate targets" is not framed correctly in any particular context.  War, rooting out insurgents, spy and covert activity looking for singular targets, blah blah blah.

Air strikes in the absence of a boots on the ground general war are a completely different matter.  Here "air strikes" must be segregated into styles, such as fighter/bomber vs. drone strike, versus B52 converntional munitions, vs cruise missile precision targeting.  These must then be viewed in line with the nature of supporting ground forces, and their level of competence and strength against an enemy.

There is nothing nice about this stuff.  

you missing the point. Air strikes are great at blowing shit up and even great at killing people you are targeting.

what it doesn't explain, is that for every 10 jihadis you kill, you probably create another 50 through the collateral damage plus bad public relations.

so its pointless. Almost every single one of these Isis recruits that I have seen interviewed has one common thread in their logic : they become enraged at seeing infidels in the holy land and enraged at the videos of infidels killing muslims.

save the strikes for major threats, like WMD facilities. Rather spend all that money on strengthening borders and intelligence. Lacking something to fight and lacking an immediate target to vent their frustrations on, these guys ALWAYS end up killing each other, they hate each other a lot too, they just hate the west more.

ISIS is trying to get US to commit to battle, as well as Europe. It's a jihadi recruiting machine x 1000 for them.

Obviously never happen as the weapons companies will go out of business.

[jasonjm]

that is a very lame question you have there. Everybody has a right to religion and depends on their heart. Remember those terrorist attacking innocent people in the name of Islam they are non but lost souls. they have been radicalized for the benefit of few evil people no Islam. Instead of such a post we should be trying to preach peace among st ourselves not hating. Peace peace

yes lets all hold hands and sing camp songs

I don't think Europeans can see it, but from the outside it looks like the EU is in the early stages of falling apart.

[Gronthaing]

No they do not always make sense.  I am simply arguing in favor of looking at the facts instead of covering them up.  Where ever they lead.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

And you believe the conclusion to take from that article is that rape in sweden is almost completely caused by muslims? Maybe a lot of it is. I don't know. Didn't read the linked articles, and they aren't in english. But that isn't the conclusion I would take. The article has problems:

comparing data with 30 years difference and ignoring society changed in the meantime. They say higher rates of report and different laws are strange explanations for that. But both are true. Reports are more encouraged than 30 years ago and laws have changed a lot. Not only the new things that are now reported as rape as they say. But also the way it is reported is now different: each assault is counted separately. Even for the same people involved. That is why it's problematic to compare different countries with different laws. The article also lies directly: it compares denmark and sweden saying laws are similar. They are more similar now that denmark changed the criminal code. But weren't in the data they compare for 2008 and 2011. Denmark is one of the worst countries in europe in terms of violence against women. And with a lot of under reporting of rapes. And laws against it were very weak until 2013 when changes were made. For example rape of someone in a helpless state didn't count as rape.

they admit there isn't a lot of studies on background of rapists. Between links not being in english and they lying as I said above I don't know if data they show is true. But take the 1996 study that talks about countries of origin. And how more likely immigrants from those countries were to commit rape than swedish men. "The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men." If this was all a muslim thing I would expect to see Iran higher too. And christian nations like bulgaria and romenia down, not with almost double the rate of a muslim nation. So either there was not sufficient information to take broad conclusions. Or the society where immigrants come from has great impact. It's not only religion. Like I said do you want to compare people in indonesia, malaysia, saudi arabia, somalia, etc just because they share the same religion? Doesn't make sense.

[jasonjm]

No they do not always make sense.  I am simply arguing in favor of looking at the facts instead of covering them up.  Where ever they lead.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

And you believe the conclusion to take from that article is that rape in sweden is almost completely caused by muslims? Maybe a lot of it is. I don't know. Didn't read the linked articles, and they aren't in english. But that isn't the conclusion I would take. The article has problems:

comparing data with 30 years difference and ignoring society changed in the meantime. They say higher rates of report and different laws are strange explanations for that. But both are true. Reports are more encouraged than 30 years ago and laws have changed a lot. Not only the new things that are now reported as rape as they say. But also the way it is reported is now different: each assault is counted separately. Even for the same people involved. That is why it's problematic to compare different countries with different laws. The article also lies directly: it compares denmark and sweden saying laws are similar. They are more similar now that denmark changed the criminal code. But weren't in the data they compare for 2008 and 2011. Denmark is one of the worst countries in europe in terms of violence against women. And with a lot of under reporting of rapes. And laws against it were very weak until 2013 when changes were made. For example rape of someone in a helpless state didn't count as rape.

they admit there isn't a lot of studies on background of rapists. Between links not being in english and they lying as I said above I don't know if data they show is true. But take the 1996 study that talks about countries of origin. And how more likely immigrants from those countries were to commit rape than swedish men. "The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men." If this was all a muslim thing I would expect to see Iran higher too. And christian nations like bulgaria and romenia down, not with almost double the rate of a muslim nation. So either there was not sufficient information to take broad conclusions. Or the society where immigrants come from has great impact. It's not only religion. Like I said do you want to compare people in indonesia, malaysia, saudi arabia, somalia, etc just because they share the same religion? Doesn't make sense.

uhmmm maybe it does make sense, because in a lot of the arab countries you mentioned, if you report getting raped, it gets you a public whipping for being a slut?

[Spendulus]

No they do not always make sense.  I am simply arguing in favor of looking at the facts instead of covering them up.  Where ever they lead.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

And you believe the conclusion to take from that article is that rape in sweden is almost completely caused by muslims? Maybe a lot of it is. I don't know. Didn't read the linked articles, and they aren't in english. But that isn't the conclusion I would take. The article has problems:

comparing data with 30 years difference and ignoring society changed in the meantime. They say higher rates of report and different laws are strange explanations for that. But both are true. Reports are more encouraged than 30 years ago and laws have changed a lot. Not only the new things that are now reported as rape as they say. But also the way it is reported is now different: each assault is counted separately. Even for the same people involved. That is why it's problematic to compare different countries with different laws. The article also lies directly: it compares denmark and sweden saying laws are similar. They are more similar now that denmark changed the criminal code. But weren't in the data they compare for 2008 and 2011. Denmark is one of the worst countries in europe in terms of violence against women. And with a lot of under reporting of rapes. And laws against it were very weak until 2013 when changes were made. For example rape of someone in a helpless state didn't count as rape.

they admit there isn't a lot of studies on background of rapists. Between links not being in english and they lying as I said above I don't know if data they show is true. But take the 1996 study that talks about countries of origin. And how more likely immigrants from those countries were to commit rape than swedish men. "The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men." If this was all a muslim thing I would expect to see Iran higher too. And christian nations like bulgaria and romenia down, not with almost double the rate of a muslim nation. So either there was not sufficient information to take broad conclusions. Or the society where immigrants come from has great impact. It's not only religion. Like I said do you want to compare people in indonesia, malaysia, saudi arabia, somalia, etc just because they share the same religion? Doesn't make sense.

What?  I posted an article that clearly states the limits of it's methodology and conclusion.  That's being about as fair to all sides as one can get, isn't it?

[jasonjm]

It's a lost cause. I have realized Europeans live in a make believe world. They seem to be logically illiterate.

For example, they are going to spend 100s of billions of dollars on these new refugees who will offer them nothing but headaches, yet they could have offered a lot of their troubled member states complete debt relief and restructuring with that same money (Portugal Italy Spain Greece).

Instead they chose to humiliate Greece as a warning to others, and welcome millions of hostile strangers.

So, they would rather help anonymous strangers and not their own eu citizens.

The place is done for, I am absolutely convinced we are seeing the beginning of the breaking apart of the eu.

The borders fences are going up, they are taking on a massive social and financial burden with refugees and their debt crisis is not solved it's been put on hold temporarily, plus throw in massive youth unemployment, and now a legitimate terror threat that will haunt them for the next decade at minimum. 

[Gronthaing]

No they do not always make sense.  I am simply arguing in favor of looking at the facts instead of covering them up.  Where ever they lead.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape

And you believe the conclusion to take from that article is that rape in sweden is almost completely caused by muslims? Maybe a lot of it is. I don't know. Didn't read the linked articles, and they aren't in english. But that isn't the conclusion I would take. The article has problems:

comparing data with 30 years difference and ignoring society changed in the meantime. They say higher rates of report and different laws are strange explanations for that. But both are true. Reports are more encouraged than 30 years ago and laws have changed a lot. Not only the new things that are now reported as rape as they say. But also the way it is reported is now different: each assault is counted separately. Even for the same people involved. That is why it's problematic to compare different countries with different laws. The article also lies directly: it compares denmark and sweden saying laws are similar. They are more similar now that denmark changed the criminal code. But weren't in the data they compare for 2008 and 2011. Denmark is one of the worst countries in europe in terms of violence against women. And with a lot of under reporting of rapes. And laws against it were very weak until 2013 when changes were made. For example rape of someone in a helpless state didn't count as rape.

they admit there isn't a lot of studies on background of rapists. Between links not being in english and they lying as I said above I don't know if data they show is true. But take the 1996 study that talks about countries of origin. And how more likely immigrants from those countries were to commit rape than swedish men. "The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men." If this was all a muslim thing I would expect to see Iran higher too. And christian nations like bulgaria and romenia down, not with almost double the rate of a muslim nation. So either there was not sufficient information to take broad conclusions. Or the society where immigrants come from has great impact. It's not only religion. Like I said do you want to compare people in indonesia, malaysia, saudi arabia, somalia, etc just because they share the same religion? Doesn't make sense.

What?  I posted an article that clearly states the limits of it's methodology and conclusion.  That's being about as fair to all sides as one can get, isn't it?

Lying to make a point isn't fair. Did you read what I wrote?

uhmmm maybe it does make sense, because in a lot of the arab countries you mentioned, if you report getting raped, it gets you a public whipping for being a slut?

Arab and muslim isn't the same thing. And he was talking about muslims. But if you believe it makes sense and since he avoided the question maybe you want to answer? If society where people come from doesn't matter why are people from christian countries like ecuador, romenia or bolivia with the same or higher likelihood to rape than people from a muslim nation according to the study? Are all christians rapists too? And are people from countries so different as saudi arabia, qatar, turkey, malaysia, etc the same because they maybe share the same religion?

[jasonjm]

I agree with you I don't know how reliable these studies are. The data is difficult to verify and can be skewed easily.

What is more difficult to dispute is it's definitely a fact that almost all the countries the refugees come from have very low levels of women's rights.

So I don't understand if women are 50 percent of eu vote, how can they possibly think this ends well for them?

[Gronthaing]

I agree with you I don't know how reliable these studies are. The data is difficult to verify and can be skewed easily.

What is more difficult to dispute is it's definitely a fact that almost all the countries the refugees come from have very low levels of women's rights.

So I don't understand if women are 50 percent of eu vote, how can they possibly think this ends well for them?

And maybe you're right. But if there aren't reliable studies to back it up all you are doing is speculating. You are speculating the refugees will behave that way in the new countries. That they are hostile as you posted above. That they will not integrate in the new society. Nor their descendents. And that they will only be a burden and a danger to society. Maybe someone else can speculate that for example a good amount of syrian refugees are normal people with skills who were productive in their society. And if given the chance will be in the new country too. Maybe someone else can make the case that most countries where refugees come from are dictatorships or failed states. Countries where moderate and progressive forces are killed or persecuted. So taking broad conclusions from all refugees is problematic. Without evidence, I don't know what the reality is. But I know that many are running for their lives. I don't believe what is being done is all that is necessary to solve the problem. But I have nothing against helping them as much as possible for now. Then a long term solution will need to stabilize the middle east. Not bombing it without pause. And destroying countries everywhere.