Germany's Refugee Crises

It has gotten to the point that I cannot go take a pee without there being another attack

Man shot in mall in Malmo, Sweden http://www.todayonline.com/world/man-shot-mall-swedish-city-malmo-police


CoTjeLjUAAAwwcD.jpg
 
Last edited:
Gotta feel for France
Their Algerian issue has them in a real pickle, somewhat unique from the rest of the EU
 
Joe Fan said:
It has gotten to the point that I cannot go take a pee without there being another attack
Click to expand...

There was a hospital shooting in Germany today too. Doctor shot. Names not given, but I'll give it a wild guess; gunman's name is Muhammad ..... al ............!

How long before Vegas starts giving odds on the next terror attack; when, where, weapon of choice, and over/under on body count?
 
It wasn't just Comey who made statements concerning lacking vetting methods.

Feel free to browse several quotes by top officials and experts on the subject.

Top leaders of the FBI, CIA, Director of National Intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, National Counterterrorism Center, etc. on record voicing strong concerns over lacking vetting materials and serious threat ISIL will infiltrate the population.

If you can read all of that and still argue the current fast-tracked screening is adequate, I feel sorry for your loyalties and utter disregard for American safety.

These are not people playing politics and pushing an agenda, these are the experts who protect the safety of our country for a living. And all are voicing the same concerns.
 
Last edited:
iatrogenic said:
Just ignore the facts when you're wrong.
Click to expand...

OK. I'll play. What other traditional ally has come out to speak favorably of Trump? Multiple leaders in Europe have criticized Trump, big (UK, France) and small (Estonia). Latin America leaders have been critical. I get it, to his supporters that is all seen as a "positive". Muslim countries have been critical. The same ones he wants to halt immigration from while enhancing our intelligence. Trump has said he wouldn't support a Russian invasion for any country that hasn't met "paid in full" into NATO. Hey UK and France...you qualify as not deserving our protection!!

Of course, there is also an unwillingness to criticize his bromance with Putin too. Then again, there clearly isn't much Trump's rabid supporters would criticize about him.

What is the evidence again since clearly Trump supporter are the holder of "sense" on Foreign policy?

BTW- Where did you stand on the Iraq War invasion? In the 75% support or the 25% against? This is key decision point on whether you have grounds to lecture on foreign policy.
 
Seattle Husker said:
OK. I'll play. What other traditional ally has come out to speak favorably of Trump? Multiple leaders in Europe have criticized Trump, big (UK, France) and small (Estonia). Latin America leaders have been critical. I get it, to his supporters that is all seen as a "positive". Muslim countries have been critical. The same ones he wants to halt immigration from while enhancing our intelligence. Trump has said he wouldn't support a Russian invasion for any country that hasn't met "paid in full" into NATO. Hey UK and France...you qualify as not deserving our protection!!

Of course, there is also an unwillingness to criticize his bromance with Putin too. Then again, there clearly isn't much Trump's rabid supporters would criticize about him.

What is the evidence again since clearly Trump supporter are the holder of "sense" on Foreign policy?

BTW- Where did you stand on the Iraq War invasion? In the 75% support or the 25% against? This is key decision point on whether you have grounds to lecture on foreign policy.
Click to expand...
vetting....the subject is vetting
 
Joe Fan said:
Gotta feel for France
Their Algerian issue has them in a real pickle, somewhat unique from the rest of the EU
Click to expand...

True, but this is why the immigration issue is related to terrorism. Today's "peaceful" Islamic immigrants sometimes become or give birth to tomorrow's Islamic terrorists. That's especially true in countries where assimilation isn't a high priority, as it isn't in France and most of Europe. In other words, multiculturalism kills.
 
I've heard several advocates talk about how long the vetting process is, but I've heard very few specifics about what's actually being looked into during this period From what I can tell from the comments linked by Brad, there's little real vetting that can be done simply because of a lack of reliable information. In light of that, some bad apples will get in, and some people will be killed.

Accordingly, this issue is about priorities. Is it more important to be fair to the overwhelming majority of refugees who aren't dangerous, or is it more important to protect American lives from acts of terror? You can't do both perfectly.

SH has suggested some good ideas to try to balance the priorities - letting in women, children, and the elderly while still vetting and keeping up with them the best we can. I think that's the sensible approach.

The problem is that nobody in this race is suggesting SH's approach or anything like it. Furthermore, people are going to assume that Hillary and the Democrats would follow an example more similar to her ideological brethren in Western Europe, which few would consider a success. They supposedly vet and are supposedly letting in non-threatening people, but nobody believes that. Why? Three reasons. First, violent crime has gone up. Second, the government and media have been caught in lies. Finally, it's not what people see with their own eyes. Personally, I don't see a lot of women and children. When I see people who are obviously "migrants," it's disproportionately adult men who should be in Syria fighting for their country.

Personally, I think Europe has done sensible advocates for real re, fugees a great disservice, because they've blown they're credibility. Nobody believes that they're really trying to protect the public, and if forced an extreme position, most sensible, non-suicidal people are going to err on the side of exclusivity.
 
For whatever reason, the left has forced the term "vetting" to become synonymous with "racism". I have been able to discuss the moderate approach you speak of to a few very liberal people, (the thought of allowing women, children, elderly faster entry). These people have no idea of what is really happening in Europe. In some cases, they think I have been "brainwashed" by Fox, and have fact checked me!
If I'm being honest, I would not know about half of what is happening in Europe without this board sharing information. It has really opened my eyes to the potential danger we face in the US if we just open the floodgates.

I think the combination of our media keeping incidents quiet as possible for the most part, people becoming almost numb to the reality of a "new normal", and a true push by a minority to cover those of us who would like to tap the brakes a bit with a big old blanket of shame.

I remember the exact moment when the story broke about Daniel Pearl. I recall the media being hesitant to share the specifics of his beheading at first since that seemed so gruesome. I was literally aghast at the brutality of people cutting a man's head off, and then sending the act out on videotape. I couldn't believe such a thing.
Now, an 85 year old priest is (allegedly) decapitated at the altar of his church, and the county practically yawns.
The events of terror in the past couple of weeks have barely been mentioned, and from what I saw of the DNC, it wasn't a topic at all. They were busy singing, "What the World Needs Now". I don't want to go full-on war, but there has to be a middle ground, and I don't see either side providing one.
If I have to pick a side, I will pick the side of slow things down. I'm not proud of that, but allowing anyone to come here without the best screening we can offer is a situation fraught with danger.
 
Hollandtx said:
The events of terror in the past couple of weeks have barely been mentioned, and from what I saw of the DNC, it wasn't a topic at all.
Click to expand...

You are correct sir, Politifact verified that no Dem speaker has said "ISIS".

That's probably because ISIS happened under their watch. They own it.
 
PE
It is a good idea if we believe the gov't OWES it' citizens first. But a we see when illegal immigration is mentioned lefties ignore the word illegal and accuse us of being nativist or racist. It would be the same with a TEMPORARY halt . Lefties would ignore the word temporary.

MrD
In May BO lowered the vetting time from the 18-24 mons people were so proudly pointing to as showing how thoroughly the Gov't was vetting, lowered it to 3 mons. How much vetting is going on now?
Letting in women like the San Bernadino killer or the black widows who blow themselves up? letting in children like the ISIS cubs who behead and shoot people? So far as I know there haven't been any elderly killing other people .
But how many elderly would want to live their families?
How much more compassionate would it be to tke the hundreds of millions we would have to borrow to bring refugees here and give them a life, use some of that money to set up safe place in their own country .
 
Apparently some have criticized the use of deadly force to stop the axe wielder, and some Germans have decided to have a little fun with it. It has subtitles.

 
Pretty clever video Deez, made me smile and think about why we didn't come up with similar video after the exploding robot criticism.
 
Angela Merkel doubled down on her immigration policy. She says that the attackers want to undermine Germany's "sense of community, our openness and our willingness to help people in need". Apparently she doesn't give a crap about how many Germans die in the process.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36912141

Oh, but she is willing to look at "arms sales on the internet". Better look at ax and machete sales too Angie.
 
Htown77 said:
Well that's troubling in regards to U.S. base security in general.
Click to expand...

Honestly I've never been particularly impressed with it. Most bases in Germany use private security firms, and frankly some of the guards don't make me feel particularly safe and secure. Ramstein Air Base is an exception - perhaps because of what is there. All entrances are guarded by armed US military personnel, and they're often carrying some pretty scary looking weaponry.

Lajes Field in the Azores was guarded by Portuguese Air Force personnel. Those guys didn't give two squirts of piss who came on the base.
 
Most countries where we have military installations get the ' perk" of providing much of the civilian work which provides local employment and that includes base entrance security.
But I am surprised a building with weapons wasn't secured better.
surprised and concerned for the local population if this was refugees
 
Lajes Field in the Azores was guarded by Portuguese Air Force personnel. Those guys didn't give two squirts of piss who came on the base.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Armed_Forces

Portuguese Armed Forces:
"Active personnel 32,992 (88% males, 12% females) (2016)"

It is funny you bring this up. I was just commenting the other day that Portugal only has 33,000 soldiers so what is even the point of them being in NATO? What do they even contribute? They could not defend Lisbon with 33,000 much less provide allied support.

Now I know that some are actually deployed, doing a lousy job of guarding a base for us. #themoreyouknow
 
Horn6721 said:
Most countries where we have military installations get the ' perk" of providing much of the civilian work which provides local employment and that includes base entrance security.
But I am surprised a building with weapons wasn't secured better.
surprised and concerned for the local population if this was refugees
Click to expand...

That's true, but it does vary based on location and what kind of job. It's pretty expensive to hire Americans for these jobs, because of the moving and housing costs. If we're talking about low skilled civilian positions, it makes a lot more sense to hire local nationals or perhaps dependents of military personnel already in location. For example, Mrs. Deez's job requires a person with US licensing and knowledge and skills that are unique to someone from the US, and that's why the cost of hiring and moving an American civilian is justifiable. However, if you're a cashier at the Commissary, there's no reason to spend thousands of dollars to move an American to Germany.

Of course, location is also a factor. We have a base at Guantanamo Bay that for obvious reasons can't hire local nationals. Accordingly, if they need someone to fill a position and can't find a dependent, then they have to move someone from the US. Ditto for Diego Garcia, which doesn't have a local population. That gets expensive, but we don't have much choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top