Immigration

[Scaff]

You are talking perfect grammar here instead of 'good basic grammar', a spelling mistake might just happen when there are a lot of non native speakers on your forum. I edited my original post so it can't be interpreted as 'factual' anymore...

And all of the other posts in which you have posted un-sourced opinion as fact?

Context is a bit different, as your country isn't dealing with a sudden influx of millions of Christian migrants with dubious motives.

And I take you have a valid source to show this is the case with the refugees coming into Europe?

I wonder how you'd react should that be the case.

Logical fallacy, you presume your above claim to be true. Until you have shown it to be the case, this is a moot point.

 

[mister dog]

Hey you know what, why don't you make a new forum guideline that every single post should be accompanied by a source? Then you can spare the effort of having to ask for it whenever someone posts a sentence which could be interpreted as factual 👍

 

[Scaff]

Hey you know what, why don't you make a new forum guideline that every single post should be accompanied by a source? Then you can spare the effort of having to ask for it whenever someone posts a sentence which could be interpreted as factual 👍

Tu quoque / You too

You make a factual claim and you are expected to back it up. That's a standard across the entire site and always has been (and its covered under the AUP in terms of not posting knowingly inaccurate information).

If you are unable to cite a source for a factual claim you have made then simply acknowledge that and retract it, don't bury yourself in more logical fallacies.

 

[mister dog]

All i know is that it's easier hammering on this kind of stuff (or grammar mistakes for that matter), than to reply with a decent counter argument yourself.

I will definitely start using IMO, or 'I think' a lot more from now on so we don't have to bother going this route.

 

[Liquid]

All i know is that it's easier hammering on this kind of stuff (or grammar mistakes for that matter), than to reply with a decent counter argument yourself.

You haven't replied to any of my queries yet. I haven't been banging on about grammar.

 

[mister dog]

Y'all got any more of them citations?

Here's one after 2 seconds of googling:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/sho...a-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/

Absolute bollocks.

Citation needed!

And i never said white people don't commit crimes, nor that our society is perfect and without crime. But if you open the gates to an influx of millions of individuals that are not real refugees (about 60% of them), without knowing who you are taking in exactly or what their motives are, this is opening the door for conflict especially in times of ISIS being a real threat with their ideology of destroying the west, and them having stated themselves they would use the refugee stream to infiltrate Europe.

 

[novcze]

Could you please explicitly explain exactly what these are please? Be as specific as you like. I'd be very interested to read what you have to say.

I would be more interested in what you have to say to this poor girl who is afraid to walk on the streets of their own hometown and in their own country.

 

[Liquid]

I would be more interested in what you have to say to this poor girl who is afraid to walk on the streets of their own hometown and in their own country.

There's a lot of bad people out there; Czechs and non-Czechs.

Your turn. No stalling.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's one after 2 seconds of googling:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/sho...a-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/

How strange... the source page for that survey doesn't exist.

Make sure you're not confusing full-on fundamentalist interpretations of Shariah law with people who just want the sensible traditions like marriage and banking.

 

[Scaff]

Here's one after 2 seconds of googling:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/sho...a-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/

From a right wing news outlet, that then cites as a source an other right wing news outlet, neither of which provide a source to back up the claims made.

Do you bother putting any sort of critical analysis into any of the sources you use?

Oh and when you do get to the original poll, they complain about sites of the nature you used utterly misrepresenting the poll.

"*UPDATE (December 11, 2015): The first sentence of this article has been changed from “…significant minorities embrace supremacist notions” to read “…of those polled a significant minority embraces the supremacist notions” to eliminate any ambiguity. Despite our best efforts, numerous media outlets have serially misrepresented this sentence and used it to claim that The Center holds the survey as representative of all Muslims in the United States. The Center has been consistent with claims that the results are of those individual Muslims polled and the “significant minorities” in the first sentence is a specific reference to participants of the survey we referenced immediately prior. We at the Center have consistently stood by the results of our poll and we will continue to do so."

Rather a different context.

Citation needed!

Please don't push your luck.

And i never said white people don't commit crimes, nor that our society is perfect and without crime. But if you open the gates to an influx of millions of individuals that are not real refugees (about 60% of them), without knowing who you are taking in exactly or what their motives are, this is opening the door for conflict especially in times of ISIS being a real threat with their ideology of destroying the west, and them having stated themselves they would use the refugee stream to infiltrate Europe.

Source for 60% of them not being 'real refugees' (as you have once again made a factual claim without source) and while ISIS have indeed made such a claim, to date every attack made in Europe has been for people who have had legal residence in Europe (i.e. not refugees).

Now should we do all we can to screen people (all people) entering Europe? Of course, but that doesn't mean that the majority are an issue. Not even close.

Make sure you're not confusing full-on fundamentalist interpretations of Shariah law with people who just want the sensible traditions like marriage and banking.

Just as we have throughout Europe for Christian and Jewish communities.

 

[Dotini]

Make sure you're not confusing full-on fundamentalist interpretations of Shariah law with people who just want the sensible traditions like marriage and banking.

You combine Shariah law with the national legal system and you get places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, according to your link.

 

[mister dog]

Please don't push your luck.

Asking for citation to back up a claim is only the privilege of some?

Source for 60% of them not being 'real refugees' (as you have once again made a factual claim without source)

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...e-are-not-refugees-eu-official-says-1.2511133

Vice president of the European commission credible enough?

and while ISIS have indeed made such a claim, to date every attack made in Europe has been for people who have had legal residence in Europe (i.e. not refugees).

Wrong, at least 2 of the Paris attackers entered through Greece as refugees. So did the man that tried to attack a police station in Paris last month. And although Abdelhamid Abaaoud was Belgian, he was a known terrorist and he too used the refugee stream to enter France unnoticed.

Now should we do all we can to screen people (all people) entering Europe? Of course, but that doesn't mean that the majority are an issue. Not even close.

Problem is there is hardly any screening. Time will tell if the majority will create issues, I can see a major issue coming to sustain our welfare systems already, and that is aside from other problems like we witnessed in Cologne for example.

 

[Scaff]

Asking for citation to back up a claim is only the privilege of some?

Once again you made the claim, you provide a back up, until you do it is worthless.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...e-are-not-refugees-eu-official-says-1.2511133

Vice president of the European commission credible enough?

Not until he provides the figures to actually back that up, which is actually what your own source says (did you read past the headline).

Wrong, at least 2 of the Paris attackers entered through Greece as refugees. So did the man that tried to attack a police station in Paris last month. And although Abdelhamid Abaaoud was Belgian, he was a known terrorist and he too used the refugee stream to enter France unnoticed.

Sources.

Problem is there is hardly any screening. Time will tell if the majority will create issues, I can see a major issue coming to sustain our welfare systems already, and that is aside from other problems like we witnessed in Cologne for example.

Yes - but again this doesn't make the majority a problem automatically.

 

[Dennisch]

Sources

Le click.

Hiding amongst refugees was already confirmed. Also that the passports found were registered in Greece months before the attacks in Paris.

 

[mister dog]

Not until he provides the figures to actually back that up, which is actually what your own source says (did you read past the headline).

Article states that he got the figures from Frontex. But hey it's your full right to remain skeptical as long as Frontex doesn't publish it publically i suppose...

Sources.

Getting a bit tired of having to look for an article for every sentence i write down to be honest, but here you go:

http://www.france24.com/en/20151119-paris-attackers-slip-refugee-migrant-crisis-terrorism

http://mashable.com/2015/11/23/paris-attackers-posed-as-refugees/#oCHY7zU7.Oqa

http://www.timesofisrael.com/paris-police-station-attacker-lived-in-german-refugee-shelter/

Will you at least have the decency now to admit both my 60% claim, and my claim that 3 of the Paris attackers entered the EU as refugees are based on facts?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You combine Shariah law with the national legal system and you get places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, according to your link.

I won't argue with that in the cases of the countries you quote. You don't have to take the whole or none though, those countries are extreme examples (amongst others) of the mix between traditionalist fundamentalism and modernist humanism.

 

[novcze]

There's a lot of bad people out there; Czechs and non-Czechs.

Your turn. No stalling.

I'm not claiming that native Europeans are saints, my point is why bring in more problems than we already have.
I don't know what you expect from the state, but I expect at least protection of its citizens as its core function.

Help real refugees, sure, but it can be handled very differently from what we saw/see. And we are not doing enough to help those who actually suffer back in Syria and were not wealthy enough to travel into Europe, pay to smugglers, etc.

 

[Scaff]

Le click.

Hiding amongst refugees was already confirmed. Also that the passports found were registered in Greece months before the attacks in Paris.

Many thanks

Article states that he got the figures from Frontex. But hey it's your full right to remain skeptical as long as Frontex doesn't publish it publically i suppose...

Are you actually surprised that I'm not going to take un-sourced numbers from a politician at face value?

I mean its not as if they could make a claim for political ends is it?

Getting a bit tired of having to look for an article for every sentence i write down to be honest, but here you go:

http://www.france24.com/en/20151119-paris-attackers-slip-refugee-migrant-crisis-terrorism

http://mashable.com/2015/11/23/paris-attackers-posed-as-refugees/#oCHY7zU7.Oqa

http://www.timesofisrael.com/paris-police-station-attacker-lived-in-german-refugee-shelter/

Thank you, wasn't too hard was it.

Now what percentage of the total number of refugees do those three make?

Will you at least have the decency now to admit both my 60% claim, and my claim that 3 of the Paris attackers entered the EU as refugees are based on facts?

Your 60% claim is not based on fact, you would need to original report to state that, its based on a claim by a politician.

Up to 3 of the attackers in Paris, and once again what percentage does that make? Context you see is rather important.

 

[mister dog]

Are you actually surprised that I'm not going to take un-sourced numbers from a politician at face value?
I mean its not as if they could make a claim for political ends is it?

You're not only doubting the 'vice president of the European commission' here, which i can understand under the pretext that he is a politician, but you're also doubting figures from Frontex which is the actual EU agency dealing with this migrant crisis. And yes they haven't released those figures yet but don't you think they would already have come out and said it was a lie should it have been one?

Thank you, wasn't too hard was it.

No but like i said before it gets tiring having to search for links for every sentence you write down.

Now what percentage of the total number of refugees do those three make?
Your 60% claim is not based on fact, you would need to original report to state that, its based on a claim by a politician.
Up to 3 of the attackers in Paris, and once again what percentage does that make? Context you see is rather important.

Don't try to change it now to 'what % of the total percentage of refugees 'does that make. You said that every attack made in Europe has been of people who have had legal residence in Europe (i.e. not refugees), which i proved is not true providing you with the citations you seem intent on, and you still aren't able to put some water in your whine to admit this?

Should only 1% of all refugees be covert ISIS terrorists (which is a figure which doesn't seem to far fetched to me), that would mean 15.000 fighters already entered the EU. You still think i'm just exaggerating the threat, unjustifiably blaming the uncontrolled refugee crisis here?

 

[Scaff]

You're not only doubting the 'vice president of the European commission' here, which i can understand under the pretext that he is a politician, but you're also doubting figures from Frontex which is the actual EU agency dealing with this migrant crisis.

Spot on, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Once the figures are publicly published I'm quite happy to look at them again, however until that point its not a 'fact' its an unsubstantiated claim, regardless of who it goes from.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, regardless of who the authority is.

No but like i said before it gets tiring having to search for links for every sentence you write down.

Then don't make the claims if your not happy to provide the sources for them.

Don't try to change it now to 'what % of the total percentage of refugees 'does that make. You said that every attack made in Europe has been of people who have had legal residence in Europe (i.e. not refugees), which i proved is not true providing you with the citations you seem intent on, and you still aren't able to put some water in your whine to admit this?

I have, now I'm discussing the context of it.

Should only 1% of all refugees be covert ISIS terrorists (which is a figure which doesn't seem to far fetched to me), that would mean 15.000 fighters already entered the EU. You still think i'm just exaggerating the threat, unjustifiably blaming the uncontrolled refugee crisis here?

But its not even close to 1% is it!

Based on what is know its currently 0.00000012% (3 out of 1.5 million), for that to get even close to 1% is a massive leap.

So how do you get from 0.00000012% to 1%?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Spot on, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Once the figures are publicly published I'm quite happy to look at them again, however until that point its not a 'fact' its an unsubstantiated claim, regardless of who it goes from.

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, regardless of who the authority is.




Then don't make the claims if your not happy to provide the sources for them.



I have, now I'm discussing the context of it.



But its not even close to 1% is it!

Based on what is know its currently 0.00000012% (3 out of 1.5 million), for that to get even close to 1% is a massive leap.

So how do you get from 0.00000012% to 1%?

*0.0002%, too many zeros

 

[Touring Mars]

A small point about the asylum seekers versus economic migrants thing - it's hard to put an accurate number on it, but it is patently obvious that many refugees are economic migrants - the very fact that so many have headed for Germany rather than merely aiming for Europe is enough to justify the claim that a refugee is an economic migrant. I don't doubt the 50-60% figure claimed by Timmermans - if anything it's probably an underestimate.

Also, as for the % of terrorists hiding among the influx of refugees, I think that's missing the point somewhat... even if it is only a tiny handful (and I seriously doubt that myself - we're plausibly talking about thousands of people here), the point is that there is no mechanism in place to stop them getting in if the usual checks are abandoned in the name of being good Europeans. A lot of refugees have little to no documentation whatsoever - others have fake or stolen IDs. Obviously this has no bearing on how many terrorists there are - but it does have a bearing on how easy it is for jihadists to relocate to major European cities without any trouble at all.

 

[mister dog]

But its not even close to 1% is it!

Based on what is know its currently 0.00000012% (3 out of 1.5 million), for that to get even close to 1% is a massive leap.

So how do you get from 0.00000012% to 1%?

This is getting a bit silly, you know as well as me that i wrote 'should' only 1% of the refugees be covert ISIS terrorists, i didn't say 1% are covert terrorists. Now will i get a proper answer from your side about what you think about this hypothesis, or are you intend on ridiculing me some more and hiding behind the 'factual evidence on everything or i'm not replying' excuse?

 

[Scaff]

A small point about the asylum seekers versus economic migrants thing - it's hard to put an accurate number on it, but it is patently obvious that many refugees are economic migrants - the very fact that so many have headed for Germany rather than merely aiming for Europe is enough to justify the claim that a refugee is an economic migrant. I don't doubt the 50-60% figure claimed by Timmermans - if anything it's probably an underestimate.

It could be higher, it could be lower.

To a degree that's not the point I was making, its that its not transparent and as such what impact it may or may not have can't be quantified.

Also, as for the % of terrorists hiding among the influx of refugees, I think that's missing the point somewhat... even if it is only a tiny handful (and I seriously doubt that myself - we're plausibly talking about thousands of people here), the point is that there is no mechanism in place to stop them getting in if the usual checks are abandoned in the name of being good Europeans. A lot of refugees have little to no documentation whatsoever - others have fake or stolen IDs. Obviously this has no bearing on how many terrorists there are - but it does have a bearing on how easy it is for jihadists to relocate to major European cities without any trouble at all.

I'm not suggesting for a second that checks should be abandoned at all, I highly in favour of them being in place.

Its more about the condemnation of the majority based on the activity of the few, and it is a few.

This is getting a bit silly, you know as well as me that i wrote 'should' only 1% of the refugees be covert ISIS terrorists, i didn't say 1% are covert terrorists. Now will i get a proper answer from your side about what you think about this hypothesis, or are you intend on ridiculing me some more and hiding behind the 'factual evidence on everything or i'm not replying' excuse?

So why did you pick 1%?

Its quite clear that 3 from 1.5 million is significantly lower than that, so why go to 1%. Its a simple enough question and is far from silly; what makes you think that the real number could be as large as that given the most estimate put the overall percentage of Muslims who are members terrorist groups at around 0.002% (approx 400,000 from a total of 1.5 billion).

What do I think about it as a hypothesis? I think ISIS has both the money and ability to put terrorists into Europe via other far easier routes that pose less risks than the refugee route, and in claiming that they have thousands in the refugees (regardless of how true it is) feeds mistrust and violence and therefore feeds directly into their aims.

Using fake papers to get a terrorist into Europe using conventional means via a third country or radicalizing people who are already citizens of European countries is far, far easier and effective (as the origins of the majority involved in attacks that have taken place before and after 9/11 have shown).

 

[Dennisch]

Macedonia has completely closed the border for refugees and immigrants. Their main complaint is that Serbia has closed their border.

European Union. My ass.

 

[Dotini]

Macedonia has completely closed the border for refugees and immigrants. Their main complaint is that Serbia has closed their border.

European Union. My ass.

What matter Macedonia is closed? There's another all-EU land route through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, no?

 

[Dennisch]

What matter Macedonia is closed? There's another all-EU land route through Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, no?

If I recall correctly, Hungary has also closed their borders.

 

[Dotini]

If I recall correctly, Hungary has also closed their borders.

Humpf.
Well, you can lavish bribes on the Balkans, or threaten military force. But it may be wiser to charter cruise ships, A350s and any idle yachts from the Cote D'Azur. Europe, so lacking in sexually active alpha males, desperately needs these virile migrants, has at length found the mother load, and can't afford to blow this priceless opportunity.

 

[eran0004]

Humpf.
Well, you can lavish bribes on the Balkans, or threaten military force. But it may be wiser to charter cruise ships, A350s and any idle yachts from the Cote D'Azur. Europe, so lacking in sexually active alpha males, desperately needs these virile migrants, has at length found the mother load, and can't afford to blow this priceless opportunity.

Are you high on something?

 

[Dotini]

Are you high on something?

My deathless prose is the rhetorical equivalent of laughing gas.