I honestly believe that such terrorist attacks are not even the biggest problem for Europe at the moment. ISIS is close to its demise, this is their dying cry.
Everyone seems to be just ignoring Turkey and laughing at their new retarded laws while the country shifts from a modern western oriented Muslim country towards the old ways. Erdogan has the potential to be the Hitler of the 21st century if shit continues like this.
A question though. Isn't London the city with the highest amount of cameras around the world? Doesn't the coverage literally cover the whole city? If so it should be easy to track the movements of potential threats quite easily... the fuck?
@julep... thats why VPNs exist, the average person has no clue of the existence of VPNs though...
edit: Meanwhile Saudis, Egypt and a bunch of other muslim countries cut all ties with Qatar with claims that "they support terrorist organizations" ... I mean really, Saudis and Egypt... really?
btw someone should probably rename the thread to Opinions @ Global Politics or something like that, since the USA elections haven't been discussed for 6 months now
On June 05 2017 01:23 Baalim wrote:
Jordan Peterson tweeted something that seems reasonable about migration, basically that western countries should make a list of countries sorted by "agrees with western values" and allow migration in direct proportion to this list, and on low-scoring countries judge who gets in strongly based on their opposition to anti-western ideas (basically giving assylum to reformers, dissidents etc)
Define western values in a quantifiable way that people in western societies are united in their belief in. I've seen similar suggestions to Peterson's before, but I've never seen anyone follow up when pressed to do this.
I don't really agree with the suggestion even if we get past that hurdle, although I can see the logic behind it. I don't really think people choose to believe what they believe and I think freedom of movement should ideally be a right that is available to everyone. I mean, obviously, if someone wants to come to Norway because they want to kill Norwegians, then I don't want them to be able to come to Norway, but I don't want to ban people from travelling because they find homosexuality disgusting, or whatever.
quantifiable, how can values be quantifiable? You dont have to quantify to make a resonable "ranking".
Is irrelevant if people chose or not, you can argue that people dont chose to kill but its not an argument not to protect yourself, its a pragmatic response.
Im not talking about traveling as vacations but migration, also you say you dont want people who want to kill norweigians but are ok with people disgusted by homosexuality, what if this people believe death is the appropriate punishment for homosexuality? Do you think its ideal to allow people with those beliefs migrate in high numbers to the point they have strenght in policy? dont you see that as an threat to homosexuals? if not, why?
On June 05 2017 12:10 Spitfiree wrote:
I honestly believe that such terrorist attacks are not even the biggest problem for Europe at the moment. ISIS is close to its demise, this is their dying cry.
Everyone seems to be just ignoring Turkey and laughing at their new retarded laws while the country shifts from a modern western oriented Muslim country towards the old ways. Erdogan has the potential to be the Hitler of the 21st century if shit continues like this.
A question though. Isn't London the city with the highest amount of cameras around the world? Doesn't the coverage literally cover the whole city? If so it should be easy to track the movements of potential threats quite easily... the fuck?
@julep... thats why VPNs exist, the average person has no clue of the existence of VPNs though...
edit: Meanwhile Saudis, Egypt and a bunch of other muslim countries cut all ties with Qatar with claims that "they support terrorist organizations" ... I mean really, Saudis and Egypt... really?
btw someone should probably rename the thread to Opinions @ Global Politics or something like that, since the USA elections haven't been discussed for 6 months now
I am not concerned with terrorism at all, while tragic and scary it has little actual impact compared to political and social influence by ideologes.
You cant track the movements of many thousands of suspects 24/7
On June 05 2017 15:50 urasofty wrote:
Baal confirmed a trump supporter. Sad!
User was warned for this post.
I do not support Trump you dimwit, he clearly is an imbecile (although with a higher IQ than most of his critics) I dont think I've agreed with anything he has done after his election and the few things I agreed on pre-election that were withdrawing from Syria he has not followed through.
I however also despise most of the rest of the political spectrum, including Hillary, Obama, Merkel, McCain, Bush, Merkel, Putin etc.
yeah Milo posted that video, but I see no evidence that is in fact CNN or any real news broadcast, do you have any evidence of that or are you just being gullible?
Jesus fucking Christ the comments on that video... people are fucking retarded, cant wait for Trump to hit the nuke button and erase any trace of the pathetic ape species we are.
I was actually curious about what Nassim Taleb would think when it comes to wars and terrorism and the guy actually fears that a disease like Ebola is what will kill shitton of people in the upcoming years and not a global war because the idea of a major war is spread and because statistically, terrorism victims are probably less than people that die to random dumb shit like falling off a ladder.
Fast spreading deadly diseases however usually get reported too late and they require an immense amount of efforts to stop and it would only take one to kill hundreds of thousands if not millions even.
Baal you are obviously aware that the majority of people are disgustingly dumb, what has changed :D
On June 06 2017 06:39 Baalim wrote:
yeah Milo posted that video, but I see no evidence that is in fact CNN or any real news broadcast, do you have any evidence of that or are you just being gullible?
Jesus fucking Christ the comments on that video... people are fucking retarded, cant wait for Trump to hit the nuke button and erase any trace of the pathetic ape species we are.
It's definetely CNN BBC used shots from it too.They are saying they were just moving them for a better shot.
Edit: that woman is from cnn so everyone says cnn.
Either way it's too late the video is viral and now the same dirty tricks are being used against the media as they use all the time to push their narratives. Remember when Adam Salah was kicked off the airplane and I was triggered because the BBC used the headline Youtuber kicked off plane for speaking arabic well most people only read the headline and you had to read far into it to see he had done this type of shit before.
This is why the internet is a good thing if you watch the video 'whats coming' on the truth thread he explains it well and it's why the government will attempt to stop the 'wild west' days of the internet. They no longer have the same control where before the media was gospel.
That's already happening with facebook threatened with fines by Germany and others for including 'fake news' and 'hate speech'. What triggered the fake news media storm was actually pizzagate probably the only conspiracy theory to be censored on most of the internet. Also what I think did it for Germany was that 16 year old girl talking about how she couldn't walk the streets without getting harassed.
Other examples of msm manipulation include Zimmerman the most aryan person to walk the planet. Huge media storms when a black person is killed by white cop and no coverage of white cop kills white person etc. (nevermind the fact that the black crime rate is disproprtional and out of control therefore more likely to be involved also white cops being extra careful with blacks in order not to end up like Darren Wilson 2.0 look at headlines like https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-police-killings-2016-young-black-men which do not take into account crime rates among the races if they are so racist why don't they kill NE Asians ? because they commit the least crime another point about Asians is that they are in the highest paid race if race supposedly makes you poor why? because in reality IQ determines this. Covering attacks in Syria as Assad when it could easily be ISIS media manipulation. Consistently not reporting on the race of the perpetrator across media of the western world only do it when they are white. Making small stories out of huge scandals rotherham etc goes the other way too making huge stories out of things that fit their narrative.
In conclusion there is no source without bias and the msm is biased toward the liberal humanism (which is a fake front btw psychopaths always try to appear really nice) globalist agenda.
Rear naked woke
Last edit: 06/06/2017 18:12
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 06 2017 19:50. Posts 3093
On June 05 2017 01:23 Baalim wrote:
Jordan Peterson tweeted something that seems reasonable about migration, basically that western countries should make a list of countries sorted by "agrees with western values" and allow migration in direct proportion to this list, and on low-scoring countries judge who gets in strongly based on their opposition to anti-western ideas (basically giving assylum to reformers, dissidents etc)
Define western values in a quantifiable way that people in western societies are united in their belief in. I've seen similar suggestions to Peterson's before, but I've never seen anyone follow up when pressed to do this.
I don't really agree with the suggestion even if we get past that hurdle, although I can see the logic behind it. I don't really think people choose to believe what they believe and I think freedom of movement should ideally be a right that is available to everyone. I mean, obviously, if someone wants to come to Norway because they want to kill Norwegians, then I don't want them to be able to come to Norway, but I don't want to ban people from travelling because they find homosexuality disgusting, or whatever.
quantifiable, how can values be quantifiable? You dont have to quantify to make a resonable "ranking".
Is irrelevant if people chose or not, you can argue that people dont chose to kill but its not an argument not to protect yourself, its a pragmatic response.
Im not talking about traveling as vacations but migration, also you say you dont want people who want to kill norweigians but are ok with people disgusted by homosexuality, what if this people believe death is the appropriate punishment for homosexuality? Do you think its ideal to allow people with those beliefs migrate in high numbers to the point they have strenght in policy? dont you see that as an threat to homosexuals? if not, why?
How opposed to homosexuality is okay? How opposed to democracy is okay? How okay with bombing the middle east is okay? Even if you don't quantify these values precisely, then which values are okay, which values are western? Is it okay to think that black people are genetically inferior to white people? What if Americans decide to define Christianity as an integral part of western values? What if they ban Japanese people on account of them predominantly not believing in any god?
I've posted this before; I thought the pew research picture showing how many muslims supported various things I'm opposed to was disturbing. BUT: I thought a majority of Trump supporters being in favor of bombing Agrabah (the fictional city from Aladdin) is worse. The same logic that would make me okay with restricting immigration based on political opinions or attitudes of people in certain countries or regions would also make me have to ask americans about their political preference before accepting them. And I think that's a bad idea.
Now to be fair, Trump supporters tend not to travel, so in practice it might not be that big of a deal. But there are so many of these scenarios. There are a lot of people in western societies whose opinions I find more abhorrent than the opinions of the average Syrian.
Further, is immigration gonna be permitted based on proportionality of acceptance of western values, or is there an element of population of said country in addition? I mean, China's not so bad in terms of gay rights, not awesome either, but not so bad.. However it's also an oppressive autocratic regime at odds with many western values that are far more prevalent than gay rights. Should China get a smaller quota than say, Faroe Islands? That also sounds like a bad idea to me.
When I first read this tweet I didn't think it sounded that dumb, but the more I think about it, the dumber the idea sounds. It opens a whole bunch of cans of worms that I'm kinda surprised to see you favor. Honestly, it just sounds like an arbitrary method of attempting to accomplish the goal of less muslim immigration without having to explicitly state just that, but one that can easily be turned around to negatively affect either me or you.
Lastly, while it doesn't go fast enough, second generation immigrants are more accepting of homosexuals than first generation, third generation are more accepting than second generation, there is societal progress among groups of immigrants and seeing as how I have a global rather than regional perspective, I think showcasing how people can be homosexuals without society tearing asunder is more likely to create global cultural progress in this regard than closing off borders. And first generation immigration is not even close to big enough for immigrants to become a predominant factor - and as much as I like immigration, I don't actually want Norway to accept a 6 digit number of people per year, that'd be too much to successfully integrate. But virtually nobody thinks we should, so that's a non-issue.
On June 06 2017 06:39 Baalim wrote:
yeah Milo posted that video, but I see no evidence that is in fact CNN or any real news broadcast, do you have any evidence of that or are you just being gullible?
Jesus fucking Christ the comments on that video... people are fucking retarded, cant wait for Trump to hit the nuke button and erase any trace of the pathetic ape species we are.
It's definetely CNN BBC used shots from it too.They are saying they were just moving them for a better shot.
Edit: that woman is from cnn so everyone says cnn.
Either way it's too late the video is viral and now the same dirty tricks are being used against the media as they use all the time to push their narratives. Remember when Adam Salah was kicked off the airplane and I was triggered because the BBC used the headline Youtuber kicked off plane for speaking arabic well most people only read the headline and you had to read far into it to see he had done this type of shit before.
This is why the internet is a good thing if you watch the video 'whats coming' on the truth thread he explains it well and it's why the government will attempt to stop the 'wild west' days of the internet. They no longer have the same control where before the media was gospel.
That's already happening with facebook threatened with fines by Germany and others for including 'fake news' and 'hate speech'. What triggered the fake news media storm was actually pizzagate probably the only conspiracy theory to be censored on most of the internet. Also what I think did it for Germany was that 16 year old girl talking about how she couldn't walk the streets without getting harassed.
Other examples of msm manipulation include Zimmerman the most aryan person to walk the planet. Huge media storms when a black person is killed by white cop and no coverage of white cop kills white person etc. (nevermind the fact that the black crime rate is disproprtional and out of control therefore more likely to be involved also white cops being extra careful with blacks in order not to end up like Darren Wilson 2.0 look at headlines like https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-police-killings-2016-young-black-men which do not take into account crime rates among the races if they are so racist why don't they kill NE Asians ? because they commit the least crime another point about Asians is that they are in the highest paid race if race supposedly makes you poor why? because in reality IQ determines this. Covering attacks in Syria as Assad when it could easily be ISIS media manipulation. Consistently not reporting on the race of the perpetrator across media of the western world only do it when they are white. Making small stories out of huge scandals rotherham etc goes the other way too making huge stories out of things that fit their narrative.
In conclusion there is no source without bias and the msm is biased toward the liberal humanism (which is a fake front btw psychopaths always try to appear really nice) globalist agenda.
You dont have to convince me that mass media is corrupt, I also believe that internet news while shitty in overall quality is far better than controlled sources, its Drone you have to convince about it, not me.
Do you have the name of that CNN woman or a clip of the BBC that used those takes?, im asking because its one thing to spin some event, but to actually manufacture news is much worse
On June 06 2017 19:46 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 06 2017 16:00 Mortensen8 wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 06 2017 06:39 Baalim wrote:
You dont have to convince me that mass media is corrupt, I also believe that internet news while shitty in overall quality is far better than controlled sources, its Drone you have to convince about it, not me.
Do you have the name of that CNN woman or a clip of the BBC that used those takes?, im asking because its one thing to spin some event, but to actually manufacture news is much worse
Yea just went on bit of a rant there. I actually believe that they just moved them lol but it's looking really bad for them also the coincidental changing of police from white ones to middle eastern at the start. As well as there being a total of 12 or so people step up your al'taqqiya pls.
On June 05 2017 01:23 Baalim wrote:
Jordan Peterson tweeted something that seems reasonable about migration, basically that western countries should make a list of countries sorted by "agrees with western values" and allow migration in direct proportion to this list, and on low-scoring countries judge who gets in strongly based on their opposition to anti-western ideas (basically giving assylum to reformers, dissidents etc)
Define western values in a quantifiable way that people in western societies are united in their belief in. I've seen similar suggestions to Peterson's before, but I've never seen anyone follow up when pressed to do this.
I don't really agree with the suggestion even if we get past that hurdle, although I can see the logic behind it. I don't really think people choose to believe what they believe and I think freedom of movement should ideally be a right that is available to everyone. I mean, obviously, if someone wants to come to Norway because they want to kill Norwegians, then I don't want them to be able to come to Norway, but I don't want to ban people from travelling because they find homosexuality disgusting, or whatever.
quantifiable, how can values be quantifiable? You dont have to quantify to make a resonable "ranking".
Is irrelevant if people chose or not, you can argue that people dont chose to kill but its not an argument not to protect yourself, its a pragmatic response.
Im not talking about traveling as vacations but migration, also you say you dont want people who want to kill norweigians but are ok with people disgusted by homosexuality, what if this people believe death is the appropriate punishment for homosexuality? Do you think its ideal to allow people with those beliefs migrate in high numbers to the point they have strenght in policy? dont you see that as an threat to homosexuals? if not, why?
How opposed to homosexuality is okay? How opposed to democracy is okay? How okay with bombing the middle east is okay? Even if you don't quantify these values precisely, then which values are okay, which values are western? Is it okay to think that black people are genetically inferior to white people? What if Americans decide to define Christianity as an integral part of western values? What if they ban Japanese people on account of them predominantly not believing in any god?
I've posted this before; I thought the pew research picture showing how many muslims supported various things I'm opposed to was disturbing. BUT: I thought a majority of Trump supporters being in favor of bombing Agrabah (the fictional city from Aladdin) is worse. The same logic that would make me okay with restricting immigration based on political opinions or attitudes of people in certain countries or regions would also make me have to ask americans about their political preference before accepting them. And I think that's a bad idea.
Now to be fair, Trump supporters tend not to travel, so in practice it might not be that big of a deal. But there are so many of these scenarios. There are a lot of people in western societies whose opinions I find more abhorrent than the opinions of the average Syrian.
Further, is immigration gonna be permitted based on proportionality of acceptance of western values, or is there an element of population of said country in addition? I mean, China's not so bad in terms of gay rights, not awesome either, but not so bad.. However it's also an oppressive autocratic regime at odds with many western values that are far more prevalent than gay rights. Should China get a smaller quota than say, Faroe Islands? That also sounds like a bad idea to me.
When I first read this tweet I didn't think it sounded that dumb, but the more I think about it, the dumber the idea sounds. It opens a whole bunch of cans of worms that I'm kinda surprised to see you favor. Honestly, it just sounds like an arbitrary method of attempting to accomplish the goal of less muslim immigration without having to explicitly state just that, but one that can easily be turned around to negatively affect either me or you.
Lastly, while it doesn't go fast enough, second generation immigrants are more accepting of homosexuals than first generation, third generation are more accepting than second generation, there is societal progress among groups of immigrants and seeing as how I have a global rather than regional perspective, I think showcasing how people can be homosexuals without society tearing asunder is more likely to create global cultural progress in this regard than closing off borders. And first generation immigration is not even close to big enough for immigrants to become a predominant factor - and as much as I like immigration, I don't actually want Norway to accept a 6 digit number of people per year, that'd be too much to successfully integrate. But virtually nobody thinks we should, so that's a non-issue.
I agree that its not precise and it will be unjust in many particular cases, and if Norway were to rank Swizaerland over US immigrants that sounds very reasonable to me, its a pragmatic solution, not to close borders but to allow immigration in a managable way.
You say nobody thinks you should accept 6 figures muslim migrants in Norway yet MANY Swedish politicians believe in open borders and that they wont limit migration, I can give you plenty of quotes if you want, currently Germany is accepting nearly 1 million "refugees" every year do you think that is managable?.
These ammounts of migrants will create ghettos so they wont interact will locals, there wont be cultural exchange so they wont learn the language and they wont integrate and that is what social problems happen, that is happening in many parts of Sweden where there is housing available ONLY for migrants, essentially isolating them making integration more difficult.
Naturally the more different a culture is the longer it takes to integrate so the less migrants you can take, the US would have collapsed a long time ago if we Mexicans had a clashing culture with the west, luckily for them we believe basically in the same shit.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Jun 06 2017 21:57. Posts 3093
I don't know where you got your data from, but it's certainly not up to date.
First let us look at Germany.
Germany took 890000 in 2015, but only had 280000 asylum seekers in 2016. link
It also has 80 million people (16 times more than Norway's 5 million). 2015 was a special case and Europe was not prepared. I think accepting Syrian refugees was the right thing to do in a horrific situation, even if it means slightly worsened security conditions overall. Not necessarily because I think it's possible to seamlessly integrate 900000 people in one year, but because I hate the alternative of not giving it our best efforts even more. I do think Norway could take 15-20k people per year, though.
I don't actually have time to go more in depth here, but this site seems to give a very good breakdown of the numbers, although it's not up to date for 2016. Anyway, the biggest migration numbers don't seem to account for emigration numbers, which have also been significant.
Here's sweden:
Here's a swedish article
behind a paywall. Obviously you can't read it yourself, but I can translate you the ingress:
Sweden adjusts immigration policy to the lowest level for the EU.
The government takes historically strong measures to reduce the number of asylum recipients. Pretty much no refugee can assume permanent residency.
Here's another article from Norway's best magazine, I'm translating the start of that as well.
On november 24th, 2015, sweden's social democratic prime minister Stefan Löfven announced 'it pains me to state that Sweden is no longer capable of handling asylum seekers on the current level'. He was flanked by the vice prime minister from the most pro-immigration party in sweden, the environmental party, as they presented tough restrictions on the immigration policy.
It is true that Löfven 7 months prior to this stated that there is no upper limit to how many refugees sweden can accept. (At that point, Sweden was getting 4k per month, which I think, while high, was doable. ) But then when it increased to 10000 per week in october 2015, they actually said stop.
The article goes on to describe how this has been a tough blow to accept for many swedes.
The thing is, I've posted before that I have no problems with people saying that sweden's attitude towards refugees and migrants was naive in 2015. Guess what, the politicians who were responsible for that naive immigration policy have themselves made adjustments because they came to the same realization. Either way, you're not gonna find MANY swedish politicians who favor open borders - seeing as how the rather tight restrictions were implemented by politicians from the most pro-immigration party in sweden.
So it's just.. the impression you have of how out of control immigration is in sweden and germany doesn't match reality, sweden and germany both realized that 2015 wasn't tenable on a long term basis, and sweden and germany took far more than any other country did during 2015.
True, I get most of this information from right-wing sources which are obviously biased but on the other hand left-wing sources do not want to touch this issue with a 10 foot pole, Marie LePen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farange etc grew because this very reason and this is my quarrel, why couldn't they have this reasonable discussion we are having about migration, they chose to turn a blind eye and let the xenophobic demons run amok.
Politicians are not naive, come on... its you who are being naive, that is ruthless career that doesn't leave any room for gullibleness, they knew what they were doing, they were simply irresponsibly playing their constituency, bringing a bit that nuclear example, Merkel has a freaking PhD in chemistry and has energy advisers, do you seriously think she stopped all nuclear energy projects and chose to go Coal because she was naive? no, it was because Fukushima just happened and the anti-nuclear hype was at peak, so she opportunistically took action to gain popularity at the expense of her country's best interest, same thing that happens with migration.
Isn't this an actual violation of some law? I mean anyone involved should obviously never work in the sphere of journalism ever again, but should they even go to jail? I'm quite sure there should be some law which punishes fabrication of news in order to push propaganda
Also, RIP CNN
Also regarding Merkel's decision. Like all politician's decisions, she probably looked at some polls and was like " eh well let's do it if we are winning that many votes .. just do it ". The fact is the public is unaware on many issues and it should be like that. You can't expect people to be informed about everything, otherwise, nobody will get any shit done.
Overall terrorism is way overblown, I did some googling and if i have to trust the data I've seen... and tbh i have no real reason to trust it but did not see any counter data to it... the terrorism casualties for the last 3 years in a frame of 30years are close to the lowest years and at the middle in a 10 years frame.
This does say something else, however. ISIS has not been so powerful during all of that period and certainly didn't exist before that. What is a constant and connected to terrorist casualties passively is the involvement in the Mid East. It does not matter if ISIS ceases to exist, terrorism will still happen most likely. However, the propaganda of the refugee waves inducing higher terrorism rates is, in fact, a lie. Which also means that the right wing medias in Europe are just as shitty as the Left wing ones. No wonder. I've told you countless times to not inform yourself by reading the news. They are not meant to inform people at this point in time, but rather push ideas in the interest of different kinds of groups. They are a cool source to entertain yourself ... or anger yourself depending on how you perceive it...
