Germany: Syrian refugees capture terrorist

[Fantozzi 4,069]

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-syrian-refugee-20161010-snap-story.html

After all, maybe it isn't that bad to have some refugees from islamic countries. They might recognize radicalisation of their brothers better than us?

 

[EDIT)

It isn't said in the LAT-article I think, but meanwhile german police confirmed Jaber Albakr was planning an attack on the airport of Berlin.

[TekindusT 3,809]

I'm quite sure they might recognize the radicalization better than any person non familiar with Islam. Try to think the other way around, we've been raised in countries with a rooted Christian culture, we more or less know the codes with which Catholicism or Protestantism work and the stance of someone towards them just by hearing the speech. It is extremely easy for us to detect a how religious and up to what degree a person is just by talking 5 minutes about the topic, and I assume this happens in any other religion as well.  

[CapTon 592]

Frankly, this doesn't change my opinion on Syrian refugees; I don't trust them. At all. Many of them may be very good people, but the immense threat of terrorist infiltration is so profound that I can't bear the idea of hundreds of thousands of them coming into the U.S. I fear that even an extreme form of vetting won't work.

EDIT: I didn't make this very clear at all: I'd be fine with Syrian refugees coming into the U.S. AFTER a tough vetting process is implemented. Until then, I believe we should wait.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Sorry but reality strongly disagrees with you. Terrorists these days are not Syrian refugees, I'm sorry to see you've bought to some degree the fear propaganda promoted by the most populist extremists in Europe. They are the same kind of people who think I'd be better off living, working and paying my taxes away from their nation.

Those who have attacked, and who are being arrested, are mostly full-rights citizens of countries like the USA, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany and so many. Just check the Wikipedia articles for any attack in the Western countries during this decade. They radicalize on their cities, on the neighborhoods they've grown up and lived in. Social networks and their circle of "friends" do the rest. 

Refugees? They are normal people, like you and me; but the difference is that they have  war in their country. I've personally known a few. Some were wealthy in Syria, some were as poor as they are now. Some liked going clubbing, chilling on beach bars, were archaeologists, engineers... I would like to see how many "extremists" or "deviants" would you find if you randomly picked a group of 1000 of the most ardent citizens of the USA. You'd get some rotten apples, because rotten apples happen to be everywhere.

[rsc204 21,869]

8 hours ago, CapTon said:

Frankly, this doesn't change my opinion on Syrian refugees; I don't trust them. At all. Many of them may be very good people, but the immense threat of terrorist infiltration is so profound that I can't bear the idea of hundreds of thousands of them coming into the U.S. I fear that even an extreme form of vetting won't work.

I don't trust Americans at all... the thought of them arriving in European airports has me nervous, we must do something to stop them coming here.

Doesn't feel so good when you are in the target group does it? Seriously, this level of racism and utter stupidity is a detriment to mankind. You sir need some education. Your argument is as preposterous as saying "a man raped a women", so we can't trust men not to be rapists? Sure there are going to be terrorists, some of them might even be Syrian, but it doesn't follow that all Syrians are terrorists. Anyhow, I can't be bothered wasting my time any further with bigots, I'll just be on my way...

[Sabretooth78 808]

11 hours ago, CapTon said:

Frankly, this doesn't change my opinion on Syrian refugees; I don't trust them. At all. Many of them may be very good people, but the immense threat of terrorist infiltration is so profound that I can't bear the idea of hundreds of thousands of them coming into the U.S. I fear that even an extreme form of vetting won't work.

Yeah, we shouldn't let any of them in.  We need a moratorium on all entry until we can get a handle on how many citizens we currently have who need to be removed.

How about we start with the ardent supporters of the two hopelessly corrupt candidates for president.  That's as good a starting point as any, off the top of my head anyway.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

11 hours ago, CapTon said:

Frankly, this doesn't change my opinion on Syrian refugees; I don't trust them. At all. Many of them may be very good people, but the immense threat of terrorist infiltration is so profound that I can't bear the idea of hundreds of thousands of them coming into the U.S. I fear that even an extreme form of vetting won't work.

I don't understand the word 'immense' in this context. Is there any number to exemplify this?

Terrorism is a great problem, even an 'immense' problem an political/society level. But regarding indivudal life even with terrorism, most probably we will die at home or by car accident or at work. A 'health thread' by terrorism is negligible.

So maybe it would help you to render more precicely your fear. Me for example - I have often the fear of heaving a heart attack. Even if physicians keep telling me my heart is fine.

But still I think - my fear is more realistic than yours.

That could lead to an interesting question: can fears be judged by their realism?

[Fantozzi 4,069]

1 hour ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Yeah, we shouldn't let any of them in.  We need a moratorium on all entry until we can get a handle on how many citizens we currently have who need to be removed.

(Sorry for double post - actually I get used to it and need to be punished)

That's a discussion brought up here in germany too. Close the borders and controll every single person that comes in. Germany has borders towards nine countries.

It takes three years to qualify a border guard. A boarder guard cost the country about 100.000 Euros a year, personal costs only, excluded materials, cars, weapons uniform etc.

It's estimated, not really know, but roundabout you would need about 6000 to 8000 border guards to make borders that save so no gap remains. So we're talkin about 600 to 800 billion euros annual costs to fullfill this wish - regarding germany.

Refugees in germany actually run up a bill of 30 billion euros annually.

Shure you can raise your voice and demanding even the silliiest things. Like a little child.

But think twice before you demand solutions that will triple taxes. 

 

Sometimes to have a wish fullfilled is more punishment than help.

 

[matias93 7,535]

In any case, that's not a demand for an efficient policy, not is based on the idea of refugees or immigrants being costly to the country: what's wanted is to assert the sovereignty over the territory and to regain control over it. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

31 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

(Sorry for double post - actually I get used to it and need to be punished)

That's a discussion brought up here in germany too. Close the borders and controll every single person that comes in. Germany has borders towards nine countries.

It takes three years to qualify a border guard. A boarder guard cost the country about 100.000 Euros a year, personal costs only, excluded materials, cars, weapons uniform etc.

It's estimated, not really know, but roundabout you would need about 6000 to 8000 border guards to make borders that save so no gap remains. So we're talkin about 600 to 800 billion euros annual costs to fullfill this wish - regarding germany.

Refugees in germany actually run up a bill of 30 billion euros annually.

Shure you can raise your voice and demanding even the silliiest things. Like a little child.

But think twice before you demand solutions that will triple taxes. 

 

Sometimes to have a wish fullfilled is more punishment than help.

 

I think for those borders, by your figures, if one border guard costs 100000 Euros a year, it would be 600 to 800 million Euros annual costs. If it actually costs 30 billion Euros to accommodate for the refugees in Germany, and giving the likelihood a lot more are coming due to the open borders and the minimal to non-existent vetting, then this figure could increase quite a bit. But if an effective border substantially reduces the influx of refugees then it would be well worth the money.

Also, they're not refugees, they're nearly all economic migrants. Most of these people come from refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan and have spent some years living there. Why these places aren't converted into actual settlements with the whole range of amenities cities have is beyond me. And when the war settles down in Syria, I think a lot of displaced people will be going back to their homeland.

Instead of having unfettered, almost unvetted immigration into Europe, let's spend hundreds of billions of Euros supporting Turkey and Jordan shoulder this immense burden. Turn these refugee camps into cities and ease the stigma of temporary accommodation on foreign soil.

Take a leaf from Britain's book: actually select a small number of people, 20000 in this case, VET them and then bring them into the country. Make this process organised and safe for ALL involved. Otherwise it's just providing fuel for the right-wing groups who get vindicated with every terrorist attack and administrative and economic mishap. Stop giving the right-wing nuts bones to chew on, otherwise there could be some systemic racism and nationalism coming our way, of a kind not seen since world war 2.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

4 minutes ago, Ln X said:

Instead of having unfettered, almost unvetted immigration into Europe, let's spend hundreds of billions of Euros supporting Turkey and Jordan shoulder this immense burden. Turn these refugee camps into cities and ease the stigma of temporary accommodation on foreign soil.

I suppose on the long run this would create new ethnic enclaves with the risk to become a territorial conflict.

[rsc204 21,869]

You know, whilst I'm not totally in favour of the policy of Angela Merkel and moreover the EU in terms of immigration, I don't have anything against the suffering immigrants who end up here. You know, those who arrive with nothing, having often risked their very lives just to get here in the first place.

I worry at some level that letting all these people in will be severely detrimental in a country which already has some woefully underpaid workers. That this sort of thing at this scale will only bring about more future problems and an increase in poverty, which benefits those you pay the wages, what little they dish out to normal folk that is.

My view is that the EU are scared, scared of Russia, scared of Putin, scared of taking affirmative action. Clearly the EU, UN and every other nation with any sense of decency needs to get involved militarily. But in this age of here today, gone tomorrow politicians, none will risk the public backlash of a war that will have costs in terms of lives of the servicemen/women who would have to fight such a war. Not to mention the real cost (money) of doing so. For if we can't help protect the innocent victims of this gigantic mess and allow them to live their lives at home, at least we are providing them with refuge. I don't like wars, I don't think they are a good thing, but they are sometimes necessary. It's amazing how little public support there is even for completely justified interventions.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

That's a discussion brought up here in germany too. Close the borders and controll every single person that comes in. Germany has borders towards nine countries.

One of the nicest things about living in a modern Europe, is the lack of border controls. It's quite true to say that Freedom isn't free, sometimes we have to suffer for our beliefs. But in modern post WWII Europe, we've spent over half a century trying to bridge the divisions that pushed Europe to the very brink of destruction. I've often driven through France from Dover, into Belgium, briefly through The Netherlands and onwards to my current home in Germany. The only time I have to stop and be harassed by customs is to obtain access to my home country, the UK. Sure border controls do have their place within reason, but the freedom to just pop over a border like you were popping down the shops is something that I ardently believe in. Recently certain events, the worst of which in France, but spreading to Germany, Belgium and other nations have put Schengen at risk. If the moment someone threatens the ideology of freedom, we back down and cower in fear, we will forever be beholden to terrorists and blackmailers, looking to impede our freedoms.

2 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Yeah, we shouldn't let any of them in.  We need a moratorium on all entry until we can get a handle on how many citizens we currently have who need to be removed.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

That's a discussion brought up here in germany too. Close the borders and controll every single person that comes in. Germany has borders towards nine countries.

I think if you look closely at @Sabretooth78's follow up, you'll see he's not being totally serious here. Much like my somewhat angry outburst above, something's are so ridiculous, you can't take them seriously.

Being from the UK, I've seen the effects of mass immigration first hand many years ago. I used to visit a friend every week or two about 50km from my home, one of the larger cities in the UK. At the time, she was living in a wonderful little town called Trowbridge. Quintessentially English you might call it, not stuffed full of people, but a small place surrounded by nice countryside, a pleasant respite from living in the urban jungle. Having a car, which my friend didn't, along with my fondness for the town, I didn't mind one bit being the one who made the effort to go there for our regular meetings.

One day, from out of nowhere, the city had more Polish people in it than British people. It just sort of happened overnight, really quite a bizarre thing if you've never experienced it first hand. Now I have nothing against the Polish, I too took advantage of my right to live and work elsewhere in the EU after all. Whilst I am not stupid enough to think that all these Polish people were trouble or somehow bad people, sadly, a number of them were amongst the influx. The character of the town changed overnight, I can only imagine how that would feel to those who had grown up there or lived there for a long time. Not surprisingly, those people were not exactly nice when they spoke about the Polish influx.

Immigration and freedom of movement is fine, within certain limitations. You see, if as a continent, Poland remains a poor country, and others remain rich, this imbalance does us all harm. On the flipside, back in Poland and many other poorer EU nations, there is now a chronic shortage of doctors and other professionals. Seeing the opportunity for a better life, many of them simply moved away from their country of birth. Now, I don't for one minute feel negatively towards anyone looking for a better life, that's a very typical human response. But wouldn't Europe be better if we actually helped to increase the wealth of all nations within it, creating a more level playing field for everyone?

Again I feel the same applies here with the Syrian and other refugees from the troubled areas. It would be better for everyone if they did not feel they needed to leave their homes and land of birth. If they were enabled to live peacefully and in safety, rather than forced to migrate en-masse.

I wonder how many of you have considered who stands to gain from a massive influx of refugees? Own property? Take for example the disused newspaper factory on the outskirts of Frankfurt. The owner of a wasteland with no particular value, is now earning huge sums of government cash (that's tax payer's money), to put up refugees. In an abandoned shell of a factory no less. Not with rooms or proper facilities, just a hastily put together, might as well call it a shack arrangement. You'd think the cost you could charge for such spartan accommodation would be rather low, nope, in some cases the sum per refugee is simply eye-watering.

Want to employ someone but pay them next to nothing? No problem, the German government has you covered. In fact, they end up paying for people to go to work, so the employers don't have to. Actually this is not new, this was going on long before the refugees arrived. But if you were used to a better quality of life, good luck with that when a pool of super-cheap new arrivals are all willing to do for next to nothing, what you can't agree to do unless it covers your ridiculously expanding costs of living. Seriously, it's twice as expensive to live in Germany as it was when I arrived 10 years ago. In that time I've had to take a pay cut twice to simply get a job. My wife too had to seriously reduce her income to get a job at a multi-national Insurance firm that's doing very well for itself. If costs rise the same as the last 10 years, we simply won't be able to afford to live within 5, this scares me.

That's one of the big reasons why many British people have an averse attitude to mass immigration. It erodes the quality of life for everyone who has been brought up to expect a higher standard of living. Sadly, this all to often manifests itself in unacceptable ways, but to ignore the problems behind it does not work.

Germany and many other nations within Europe, will surely come to realise that letting millions of new people arrive every year, is simply not for the greater good of anyone in the long run. Much better to tackle evil head on, before the madness in that region spirals out of control and inflicts yet more nations. If we're not careful, a situation like the one in Europe prior to WWII is brewing in that region. However difficult the decision, we simply must take action to prevent this, even if that means sending in troops. But I don't believe we will, I mean, we sit back idly and watch a European ally (Ukraine) being invaded by Russia and do nothing? Bullies like Putin need to be stood up to, not feared. I don't doubt there would be a cost for doing so, but the cost of inaction could be many times greater.

 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

1 minute ago, Fantozzi said:

I suppose on the long run this would create new ethnic enclaves with the risk to become a territorial conflict.

Maybe... But if the Syrian conflict keeps dragging on, as is the Libyan, Iraqi, Somalian and Yemeni conflicts, then there will be millions more refugees on top of probably what? Ten million, maybe 15 million refugees from the Middle East and North Africa? And most of these are young people with no jobs. This alone will provide a hotbed of extremism and secteranism.

It sounds naive as hell, but these people need proper homes and jobs in the areas they are living in right now. Give them constructive reasons to keep going and keep those jackals of extremism, who exploit the poor and unemployed, at bay. Having these constant exoduses of people is not good for the Middle East period. I thank God the brief military coup in Turkey failed because Turkey is bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis, had Turkey become a failed state then it could have resulted in a refugee surge into Europe. Who knows? 5 or 10 million people in the space of a couple of years?

This is why the EU needs to stop pussy-footing around with Turkey, Turkey needs to be a member of the EU so that financial support can be more quickly given. It will need tens of billions of Euros more every year if these refugee camps are to be converted into proper settlements.

Historically exoduses of people, when it was not organized and controlled, has led to instability in countries where the exoduses have taking place, and often massacres and genocide. Look at Rwanda, or what happened when British India was partitioned. If the EU or the USA want to influence the world or desire more globalism, then how about siphoning off hundreds of billions of Euros/Dollars to ensure Turkey and Jordan don't become failed states, and the refugees in those countries have proper places to live and work?

Where is the Middle Eastern version of the US Marshall Plan?

[Fantozzi 4,069]

26 minutes ago, Ln X said:

It sounds naive as hell, but these people need proper homes and jobs in the areas they are living in right now.

No. The statement isn't naive. Peace, home, work ... and a TV and some funny shows on it (if I may add). That's what is roundabout needed. The naive thing is - jobs became global. And on the global level there is a certain need for them. It doesn't change much if you bring the refugees here to take up work or if you take the work from here and move it to other countries. We will loose our status quo anyway. 99,8 percent of private money on this world is owned by 2 percent of the population.

I still can't see a solution. Most of us will loose more and more economic wealth - no matter what we do - between those wo take work, jobholders, we are close to a global war. Each year our situation comes closer to the situation in so called 'development countries'. We are forced to share - this way or in another way. But if I say 'we' - that are only the jobtakers. There is another part that is very lucky about our behavior to regard this as a game of competition - we against them. They don't care where the work is done - in europe or in the middle east. How we are fooled by hating each other ... by thinking keeping them outside of our country would change anything about this misery. True is - we and them, we are reaching out our hands for the same things to be lucky. Wrong is - they steal something of our economic wealth. This stealing is done by others living already amongst us. Maybe you call them 'global players', don't know. They bring us in the situation to act hostile. They shorten the market not the refugees. And they are so lucky about us - taking up arms against the wrong enemy.

[rsc204 21,869]

29 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Most of us will loose more and more economic wealth

Nope... if you take much more from me, I'll have no choice but to steal to keep existing.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

44 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Nope... if you take much more from me, I'll have no choice but to steal to keep existing.

That's it and me feeling exactly the same. I'm myself a refugee in my own country.

I'm still ill and have to stay in bed. So annoying. Today I've been watch out the window, looking at a gas station nearby. Perhaps ten minutes. I saw a mercedes, some audis, two porsches - in total in ten minutes I saw about a million euros passing throught the gas station. And I was wondering: look all those poor people - how do they manage to drive all this expensive cars? I am totally fooled - they are talking about a missery the only ones who are in for real is me and the refugees. They say 'the country is suffering' But the only one I can see suffering for real is me and the refugees. They drive their porsches and talking about misery. How they upset me. Better I stop here or I use words inappropriate.

But I can see who's fooling me. I may be poor but I ain't stupid. There are people living next to my door talking about the misery the refugees brought us in. And they scratch their head in worries and I can see their rolex under their shirt. Maybe we really have to kill every refugee at the border until we notice somebody else in our back is stealing the work, the money, the wellfare.  They are afraid to loose a single piece of their luxury and they want to use us as medieval kings used peasants to fight their silly wars. Me I shall fight the economy? But, hell, why? Is it mine? It's a thing owned by banks, by industry - it isn't a thing that's owned by me. My profits from this economy is near zero. It's just enough to pay the rent. And now I shall panic about this economy? That's the best joke in a long time. I shall fight for that thing that makes me to be on the looser part of the cake. That thing that is responsible for this absurd state - that a banker, that increases money, earns 200 times more than a nurse in a hospital who became used to save peoples life, so she stopped thinking about it. Now I shall fight for this system agains those evil, evil enimies in russia and syria and everywhere. Help! Help! They are coming - they are a million, we must defend. We must defend what? My appartment? My 15 years old Mazda. For real? Putin wants to steal my Mazda?

I'm doing the fighting of my own exploiders. I'm their willing countryman. They laughing at me with my pickaxe patroulling at the border like conan the barbarian  'must defend, must defend' What the hell I'm defending? I'm defending a system that fooled me for 50 years? I should open the gates and invite them - as perhaps they and me, we could build up a better world. But as I was a BDSM addict I continue to defend my small paradise where they gave me the best job in the world:

 

 

[matias93 7,535]

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

Where is the Middle Eastern version of the US Marshall Plan?

Little detail: the Mashall plan recipients were fair and nice europeans, people with whom US voters could empathize. Try to convince current US voters of sending thousands of millons of dollars to "filthy" muslims. It won't happen, not at least if people knows.

---o---

Now, about the structural causes, there is settled scientific knowlegde about the fact that severe drougths cause political upheaval by means of starving rural population, forcing them to displace to cities, to live in inhuman conditions and to resent the cultural changes they are subject to. Is not casual that the Arab Spring faded from a liberal movement to a reactionary and radical fight for tribal power reorganization; it is, in a sense, the same thing that happened in Europe during the 19th century.

With such big causes, it is almost impossible to do something significative to avoid the emergence of new political conflicts in the world; on the other hand, knowing those causes allows to direct paliative actions to the deepest reachable causes, like helping former rural workers to resettle in their original lands, aiding their economies with more reliable resources and technology.

[TekindusT 3,809]

3 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

That's it and me feeling exactly the same. I'm myself a refugee in my own country.

I'm still ill and have to stay in bed. So annoying. Today I've been watch out the window, looking at a gas station nearby. Perhaps ten minutes. I saw a mercedes, some audis, two porsches - in total in ten minutes I saw about a million euros passing throught the gas station. And I was wondering: look all those poor people - how do they manage to drive all this expensive cars? I am totally fooled - they are talking about a missery the only ones who are in for real is me and the refugees. They say 'the country is suffering' But the only one I can see suffering for real is me and the refugees. They drive their porsches and talking about misery. How they upset me. Better I stop here or I use words inappropriate.

You live in Heidelberg right? That's southern Germany, where driving cool German cars is de rigueur. There are much less of them up in Sachsen-Anhalt or in the deep Brandenburg, I can tell you. There are large chunks of poor population at the northeast of the Republic. Even in Berlin, non-official high-end cars are an increasingly rare sight.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

1 hour ago, TekindusT said:

You live in Heidelberg right? That's southern Germany, where driving cool German cars is de rigueur. There are much less of them up in Sachsen-Anhalt or in the deep Brandenburg, I can tell you. There are large chunks of poor population at the northeast of the Republic. Even in Berlin, non-official high-end cars are an increasingly rare sight.

That's another almost unbelievable thing. You know since 1991 all people in germany pay an extra tax of 5,5 percent on income to help eastern germany.
Now, the income from this tax isn't every year the same but it was always between 10 billion and 15 billion - each year. In total in 25 years 274 billion euros.

In the eastern part of germany there are living about 16 million people.

Now if I divide 274 billion euros with 16 million people - these are 17100 Euro per capita over 25 years - this means in an average east german family (grandparents, parents, 2 childs = 6 x 17100) the german people invested in total 102.750 extra money (on top of all regular economic aid) until today. So if even the (by now) grown up children don't have all a mercedes - where did all the money go?

You wouldn't believe it - but this tax came in 1991, half a year after the iraqi had invaded kuwait. Did you know that germany paid 20 percent of the overal costs of the second gulf war? Roundabout 18 billion Euro. Now guess - from where that money came. And so on until today. Whenever allies asked for help and germany opend the coin purse ...that wasn't Gerhard Schroeders or Angel Merkels private money. That was the money collected to help eastern germanys economy. 

So now - who's fault is it that they still don't have their mercedes? Was it me to begin all those wars?

[Fantozzi 4,069]

Jaber Albakr commited suicide in his cell.

[CapTon 592]

17 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I don't trust Americans at all... the thought of them arriving in European airports has me nervous, we must do something to stop them coming here.

Doesn't feel so good when you are in the target group does it? Seriously, this level of racism and utter stupidity is a detriment to mankind. You sir need some education. Your argument is as preposterous as saying "a man raped a women", so we can't trust men not to be rapists? Sure there are going to be terrorists, some of them might even be Syrian, but it doesn't follow that all Syrians are terrorists. Anyhow, I can't be bothered wasting my time any further with bigots, I'll just be on my way...

For God's sake, I didn't say all Syrian refugees were terrorists. I said that there is a threat for terrorists to infiltrate the influx of refugees into the country. ISIS and others could very easily get into this country and do what they want so long as their isn't tough vetting. I believe that Syrian refugees should be let in at some point, but not until very tough vetting is implemented.

15 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Yeah, we shouldn't let any of them in.  We need a moratorium on all entry until we can get a handle on how many citizens we currently have who need to be removed.

How about we start with the ardent supporters of the two hopelessly corrupt candidates for president.  That's as good a starting point as any, off the top of my head anyway.

You're perceiving this as racism, but it isn't. I believe that many, if not most Syrian refugees are at least decent people. I'd be fine with them coming after a tough vetting process is implemented. Where my fear comes into play is the idea of ISIS and other radical groups entering the U.S. through this influx of refugees. People say that if ISIS members wanted to come here, they would via European airports, and they could and mostly like do to some degree, but it's much easier for them to just act as Syrian refugees without revealing their true identities.

15 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

I don't understand the word 'immense' in this context. Is there any number to exemplify this?

Terrorism is a great problem, even an 'immense' problem an political/society level. But regarding indivudal life even with terrorism, most probably we will die at home or by car accident or at work. A 'health thread' by terrorism is negligible.

So maybe it would help you to render more precicely your fear. Me for example - I have often the fear of heaving a heart attack. Even if physicians keep telling me my heart is fine.

But still I think - my fear is more realistic than yours.

That could lead to an interesting question: can fears be judged by their realism?

You're basing my fear on fearing for my own life due to this threat. I don't. I live in a rural area twenty minutes away from a somewhat large city (Cleveland). My fear concerns them attacking more heavily populated areas or cities, such as New York City, LA, Washington D.C., etc. I don't want innocent lives lost because of sadistic radicals passing through the Syrian refugee process. This fear could very easily be eliminated if a strong vetting process is installed to ensure that the number of terrorists coming into the U.S. is much smaller than what it could be, and THEN we can let the Syrians in.

[rsc204 21,869]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:06 AM, CapTon said:

I don't trust them. At all.

Well you post such an all encompassing statement against a single group of people like this, how on earth can you expect people to see your views as reasonable.

1 hour ago, CapTon said:

For God's sake, I didn't say all Syrian refugees were terrorists. I said that there is a threat for terrorists to infiltrate the influx of refugees into the country.

Perhaps, but my analogy with rapists then still applies. If you treat all them with suspicion, because of the potential actions and ideology of a tiny majority, you simply aren't being reasonable. Such mindsets have led to some of the worst, most inhuman acts throughout history. I'd like to think by now at least in developed countries, people were sufficiently educated not to fall for such mass-media paranoia.

It's these same views that led to the persecution of the Jews, long-running racial tensions between Blacks and White and so many other evils. I'm sorry, but however bad you may think the threat is, is never acceptable to label entire groups of people in this way. If the people of the world continue to think this way, we're surely doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over from history. There are bad eggs, but you know what, it's not always possible to stop every bad thing from happening.

For example, we know full well about the risks of fire, but we've still not found a way to eliminate it as a risk. I don't for one minute support terrorists, but if we change our way of living and way of thinking because of fear, ultimately we end up fuelling their hatred and division. Sometimes bad people will get through and you know what, more people are killed in the US every year by causes other than terrorism. For example, how many children die each year because of the proliferation of guns? So why is the tiny actions, however terrible, of terrorists somehow the greatest thing to fear here? There are so many other things that demand more urgent attention and cause much more suffering and death.

And that's the crux here, being proportionate, in terms of how you view groups of people. For a country that's founded on immigrants, the US has a really poor memory of how most of it's citizens came to be there in the first place.

9 hours ago, TekindusT said:

You live in Heidelberg right? That's southern Germany, where driving cool German cars is de rigueur

Come to Frankfurt, where it's not unusual to see Aston Martins, Ferraris, Lamborghinis and such.

8 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

That's another almost unbelievable thing. You know since 1991 all people in germany pay an extra tax of 5,5 percent on income to help eastern germany.
Now, the income from this tax isn't every year the same but it was always between 10 billion and 15 billion - each year. In total in 25 years 274 billion euros.

Indeed this is a madness, I mean at what point will this tax be repealed, it surely doesn't need to go on forever. That's the problem with such taxes, once someone's got their hands in your pocket, they really don't want to remove it again.

8 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

So now - who's fault is it that they still don't have their mercedes? Was it me to begin all those wars?

I'd settle for your 15 year old Mazda right now, my 19 year old Honda is in a garage in the country because I can't afford to keep it on the road anymore . But I don't want a crappy Mercedes that's built with less quality than a Matchbox toy car is, badges don't interest me .

But indeed, when a large number of people are shoving their wealth in your face every day, it makes it very hard to feel OK about having next to nothing. That said, these things are very subjective. I bought a 10 year old Jaguar S-Type 3.0 V6 before I had the Honda, but I bought it in the UK where prices are about 1/4 of those in Germany. Actually, I wanted to buy a Honda Accord, but unable to locate a good one, we just ended up with the Jag as surprisingly it was a sensible 2nd hand buy. The car cost me £1,500 and was a little shabby. But the looks we would get driving around here were unbelievable. However, I had it serviced in the UK for sensible prices and do as much work on it myself as possible. Sure the fuel economy wasn't exactly the greatest either. But in real terms, a friends German Audi A4 2.0 TFSI which he bought when it was 7 years old, works out more expensive to own/run. This is because I owned my car, whereas the monthly payments on his Audi (15,000€ purchase price) were already more than the total running costs of mine (fuel excluded in both cases).

Similarly, those driving brand new French hatchbacks and the like, which almost certainly had similar finance arrangements, were looking at us with an unjustified sense of envy. We used to laugh about it, since the cost of their 207 would have bought them a fleet of Jaguars if they wanted it. "One for every day of the week", I would say. Seriously, within 50km we had a choice of 50 of them to buy at this price. Because seriously, who wants an old Jag with poor fuel economy and expensive insurance. But if you see past that, they can be considered a very sensible buy though. They are surprisingly reliable for their age, extremely comfortable, very fast (when you want), and actually, when you've been running a Honda CRX DelSol with 30mpg, a S-Type with 28mpg really isn't a big deal.

But that's the thing isn't it, people who are obviously spending more money (i.e. must presumably be better off), envied us and our "kitty". By contrast, whenever I went home to the UK, no one whatsoever paid any attention to the car. Perhaps because they could more easily tell it's age, but I suspect it's that people here are even more envious of certain brands/images. Trust me, me and my wife don't do the whole image thing, we couldn't care less. I certainly couldn't have looked more out of place than I did down at the Jaguar dealership for example.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

If you treat all them with suspicion, because of the potential actions and ideology of a tiny majority, you simply aren't being reasonable. Such mindsets have led to some of the worst, most inhuman acts throughout history. I'd like to think by now at least in developed countries, people were sufficiently educated not to fall for such mass-media paranoia.

That's true.

And to add: the same way you can fear that major cities are attacked by meteors by a virus by horror clowns, by my mother, by poets reciting modern poems, monster waves, volcanos hidden under your feat.. Don't know - that's a question of your attitude. When I was 12 years old and the evening came and darkness came creeping from the mountains I always got the impression this mountains are the spine of Godzilla and if I'm not back home in time he will arise and eat me.

At the end world stays the same - Godzilla didn't eat me, I'm still here - instead you are eaten by your fears. Your fears won't make your ghost go away. Just face them.

And then - mass-media are economic institutions. They wouldn't sell apocalypse if people wouldn't desire them. Sometimes there are refugees for the same reason as there are those evil meteors greedy to slump on capital citys and to crash into those very important governements buildings - just for the thrill.

[rsc204 21,869]

38 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

by my mother

To be fair, I did need that restraining order

39 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

And then - mass-media are economic institutions. They wouldn't sell apocalypse if people wouldn't desire them.

Actually that's one thing my mother tends to fall for. Always believing the press is somehow the gospel. As you say, they want to sell units, so they will outright lie if necessary to sensationalise something. Often leaving the one bit of information that gives you real insight to the last paragraph of sentence of a story.

Go check out Charlie Brooker's News wipe or Weekly wipe on YouTube. He does a terrifically humorous job of exposing how the media does this.

 

[Fantozzi 4,069]

This seems to become a police scandal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37638631

https://www.thelocal.de/20161013/terror-suspect-suicide-a-tragedy-say-angry-mps

[Fantozzi 4,069]

Now there was a press conference and the chief officer of the local prison (no experience with terrorists!), where they kept Jaber Al-Bakr, said two sentences I remember because for me, without any further explanation, they don't make really sense..

He stated

a) When they first talked to Jaber Albakr they soon decided to start interrogation not immediatly as his german was too bad and they wanted to have an interpreter.

b) After a long conversation the prisons psychologist decided the man is calm and shows no agression so there is no urgent risk for a suicide.

...

...

And than - how a psychologist can gain the insight that a suicide bomber isn't on risk to commit suicide?

Even me I know they are trained to commit suicide they aren't like those depressives who take pills and lay down in the bathtubes.

 

They found 1,5 kilo of highly explosives in his refridgerator. And now we'll never know from where he got it. We'll never know if he was allone or if he was a member of a terror cell.

What a fail.

 

 

[Hellken 1,658]

FYI (since its being discussed here): It's actually very difficult to gain entry to the United States (compared to other countries). There is already a high degree of vetting that has been in place for years already by Homeland Security. Even if you apply for a non-immigrant visa to the United States it's not easy to go to the United States. It might be easier if you are a citizen of a country in the Visa Waiver Program. 

Basically, you are guilty of violating your visa before you enter the US and you have to prove otherwise.

Under Section 214(b) of the US Immigrant Nationality Act:

 

Section 214(b) of the Act^[5] requires a consular officer to “presume” that every applicant for admission is an “immigrant” unless he or she proves qualification for a nonimmigrant visa

[Sabretooth78 808]

My impression, based on personal experience is that even as a citizen you're pretty much presumed guilty of something upon returning.  Not sure what, exactly, but the atmosphere of the whole process is wretched.  Maybe because we dared venture outside the land of milk and honey to somewhere obviously inferior and where nothing good ever happens.

[CapTon 592]

18 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Perhaps, but my analogy with rapists then still applies. If you treat all them with suspicion, because of the potential actions and ideology of a tiny majority, you simply aren't being reasonable. Such mindsets have led to some of the worst, most inhuman acts throughout history. I'd like to think by now at least in developed countries, people were sufficiently educated not to fall for such mass-media paranoia.

It's these same views that led to the persecution of the Jews, long-running racial tensions between Blacks and White and so many other evils. I'm sorry, but however bad you may think the threat is, is never acceptable to label entire groups of people in this way. If the people of the world continue to think this way, we're surely doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over from history. There are bad eggs, but you know what, it's not always possible to stop every bad thing from happening.

For example, we know full well about the risks of fire, but we've still not found a way to eliminate it as a risk. I don't for one minute support terrorists, but if we change our way of living and way of thinking because of fear, ultimately we end up fuelling their hatred and division. Sometimes bad people will get through and you know what, more people are killed in the US every year by causes other than terrorism. For example, how many children die each year because of the proliferation of guns? So why is the tiny actions, however terrible, of terrorists somehow the greatest thing to fear here? There are so many other things that demand more urgent attention and cause much more suffering and death.

And that's the crux here, being proportionate, in terms of how you view groups of people. For a country that's founded on immigrants, the US has a really poor memory of how most of it's citizens came to be there in the first place.

Highlighted comment #1: Do you honestly think that I, in my right mind, would EVER consider committing or supporting such horrible acts against a group of people? No, I would never endorse something like that. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, and it's probably my fault for not being very clear; I believe that once a very tough vetting system is implemented, we can accept Syrian refugees. However, we should still accept the refugees within our means (I'd say 100K-200K a year at most) after that tough vetting system is in place, just to ensure our national security.

Highlighted comment #2 (italicized as well): They're the greatest thing to fear because they can get a hell of a lot of worse. And if we continue to just let them happen without properly going after them and ensuring our own safety, who's to say other countries or groups that hate us won't come after us because they know we're weak? Iran sure as hell wouldn't mind coming after us if given the chance and the assurance that we don't know how to protect ourselves. You're not thinking about the long-term threat of terrorism and the many treacherous paths it can lead us down.

Highlighted comment #3 (italicized and underlined): People LOVE to use this argument, especially when arguing against stricter laws against illegal immigration. Here's the thing: we're not a country founded on illegal immigrants. We're a country founded on immigrants that came to this land to escape the tyrannical rule of a king and to lead more prosperous lives. Do some illegal immigrants want to lead prosperous lives here? Yes, of course. But they have to do it legally. We should not be accepting people coming here illegally as if we don't have any borders at all. As for the Syrian refugees when using your argument: just simply saying, "We're a nation founded by immigrants, so we should just let them in" is not valid. You aren't even considering the security threats posed by accepting them without a strong vetting process. You perceive terrorism as such a small problem in comparison to various ones we encounter; have you not been paying attention to what ISIS and other groups have been doing in foreign countries? You may think that that could never happen here because we're the United States of America, but if you really think that way, you're severely underestimating the prowess of the threats we face. If terrorism is such an insignificant problem, then why do we care about it at all? You can constantly say how horrible terrorism is all you want, but if you're unwilling to take the necessary precautions and do what it takes to eliminate it, you're simply allowing terrorism to occur.

[rsc204 21,869]

4 hours ago, CapTon said:

Do you honestly think that I, in my right mind, would EVER consider committing or supporting such horrible acts against a group of people?

I didn't say you did. Merely that the kind of attitude, that comes across from your first posts, is atypical of the what drives hate.

If you start a sentence "I don't trust <insert group here>, because some of them are <insert problem here>, most people will associate the "problem" with the "group". Psychologically speaking, that's the kind of argument the media and people like Trump like to throw around, but it's dangerous and just creates more division. Just simple rephrasing your words "I am worried that amongst the Syrian immigrants, there may be those wishing to do us harm", would be a much more acceptable way to state your argument.

At the end of the day, I'm not looking to put words in your mouth, if indeed you have simply used a poor choice of words, I accept that. I'm not looking to find reasons to argue with anyone, I just can't stand intolerance. If you want a safer world with less terrorists in it, that's a really good place to start, not by picking up a gun.

4 hours ago, CapTon said:

They're the greatest thing to fear because they can get a hell of a lot of worse.

Nope. However bad they get, I put it to you more people die each year from accidents in bathrooms. Or traffic accidents. Or fires. Or guns which aren't safely secured. There are so many much bigger problems, they just don't seem so scary.

4 hours ago, CapTon said:

And if we continue to just let them happen without properly going after them and ensuring our own safety, who's to say other countries or groups that hate us won't come after us because they know we're weak?

Sounds like you've missed the lessons of America's past then. How have American conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan and other parts of the middle east, contributed to the safety of the US? The very people you say you need to defend yourself against, are using such conflicts as examples of why their people can't trust the Americans. This whole thing is self-defeating, no one wins.

The problem is not that America has gone to war, it's that every time you do, you don't stay the course. As soon as it's no longer politically convenient, the troops are pulled out leaving whatever mess behind that may be. Many of the current problems in the middle east can be traced back to the vacuum left behind after interventions, led by the US. If you are going to police the world (which I don't necessarily disagree with), you have to see it through to the end, however hard it gets.

4 hours ago, CapTon said:

Here's the thing: we're not a country founded on illegal immigrants. We're a country founded on immigrants that came to this land to escape the tyrannical rule of a king and to lead more prosperous lives.

Not strictly, there were those who sought to get away from the religious tolerance in Europe, so they could create a nation of religious intolerance based around their faith, with no consideration/tolerance for others. Not to mention, to buy the "people running from tyrants" argument, you'd have to ignore the wholesale slaughter of the indigenous population upon arrival. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on the US here, by joe other nations, especially the British have their fair share of evil to condone for too amongst their past.

I agree, just because America's past was founded on immigrants, doesn't mean you should let the entire world come as they like. Clearly, immigration controls are somewhat necessary in the modern world. But I wasn't intending to make the argument that you should let everyone in. Merely to point out that considering the way the country was founded, you'd expect attitudes towards immigration to be more reasonable, than I often find them to be. After all, if such strict controls were placed on your ancestors, perhaps you wouldn't be an American?