Euro migrant crisis

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/europe/europe-migrant-crisis/index.html

People from the middle east, mostly Syria are fleeing to Europe because of war and poverty. People are dieing just trying to cross the Mediterranean. The EU is trying to solve the crisis while other countries are closing their borders.

 

[fuehrer_dessler]

you actually trust the police?

Probably a little bit more than some random hoodlums?

 

[MiloWuCollusion]

you actually trust the police?

Edit: derp, misread. Sorry. I still would trust the police over someone given this pamphlets in a train station.

You don't have to trust their judgement, but their intentions aren't in question. They were targeting semi-organized, roving gangs of street thugs. Whether or not they hit the right "victims" is unclear. Your own link quotes the police as saying that they haven't even received any reports of violence against immigrants, so the whole thing has probably been blown way out of proportion anyway.

Just like Cologne lol

(That's why I mentioned eye witness being the ones reporting it. )

 

[Cosmos]

I think you give much value to a Political No-answer, Also, they are politicians... They are liars by default. They just considered more destructive (politic wise) admitting a problem with EU (as a whole) immigration policy. As individual nations, they have reacted in different ways that contradict that stance.

Even though all of that's true, it doesn't make them telling such bold-faced lies any less offensive. Like, that statement is genuinely insulting because it insinuates that all of the women who were sexually assaulted (and the men who were just regularly assaulted) and made statements confirming they were attacked by migrants are liars.

Seriously, imagine that you were a victim of the Cologne attacks and now the leaders of the EU- your leaders- are refusing to acknowledge their role in what happened to you. They care more about politics and looking good than they do about protecting you and your fellow citizens from future harm.

 

[MiloWuCollusion]

Even though all of that's true, it doesn't make them telling such bold-faced lies any less offensive. Like, that statement is genuinely insulting because it insinuates that all of the women who were sexually assaulted (and the men who were just regularly assaulted) and made statements confirming they were attacked by migrants are liars.

Seriously, imagine that you were a victim of the Cologne attacks and now the leaders of the EU- your leaders- are refusing to acknowledge their role in what happened to you. They care more about politics and looking good than they do about protecting you and your fellow citizens from future harm.

Oh, believe me... I know that feeling to an extent. This answers are standardized in my country.

 

[Linako 2.0]

A police patrol of 10 officers was forced to flee a refugee center in Sweden after being surrounded by a mob of violent migrants. Law enforcement officials had arrived to relocate a 10-year-old boy after reports of his repeated rape at the facility.

 

[Asandy31]

Even though all of that's true, it doesn't make them telling such bold-faced lies any less offensive. Like, that statement is genuinely insulting because it insinuates that all of the women who were sexually assaulted (and the men who were just regularly assaulted) and made statements confirming they were attacked by migrants are liars.

Seriously, imagine that you were a victim of the Cologne attacks and now the leaders of the EU- your leaders- are refusing to acknowledge their role in what happened to you. They care more about politics and looking good than they do about protecting you and your fellow citizens from future harm.

It's not just that, but they pay the salaries of these shitheads to protect and shield people who want to terrorize and displace their citizens. The same thing is going on all over the EU and USA..leaders/SJWs are telling their people that their lives mean nothing as long as a Muslim's penis is in an Westerner, his children and wife have free housing, food, your children's oxygen, and you have to struggle or starve along with becoming homeless....WTF...

 

[Splendid]

Remember Europe, you could have access to firearms, devices that allow one person to fight off many other people and that allows people to fight off those much stronger than them.

But instead you chose not to have them.

 

[Vitriol]

The guardian has decided as public opinion no longer matches their views they are no longer going to allow comments on Islamic immigration stories:

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.

The policy would be worldwide, applying to our UK, US and Australia offices, as the issues were global. And, where they were open, it was likely that threads would close sooner than the typical three-day window. “We want to host conversations where there is a constructive debate, where our audience can help us broaden our journalism with their expertise, their knowledge, their considered thoughts and opinions, and where they can use our site as a platform to make connections with the world and with those around them,” added Hamilton.

This was not a retreat from commenting as a whole, she said; it was an acknowledgement, however, that some conversations had become toxic at an international level – “a change in mainstream public opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site”.

 

[Splendid]

The guardian has decided as public opinion no longer matches their views they are no longer going to allow comments on Islamic immigration stories:

Holy shit, a mainstream British newspaper has gone full SJW. I hope they get boycotted to hell.

From now on, we should only post archive links to them as well, to avoid giving them any advertiser money.

And yeah, I'm sure that their comment sections on this in the USA were so fucking toxic.

 

[Vitriol]

Holy shit, a mainstream British newspaper has gone full SJW. I hope they get boycotted to hell.

From now on, we should only post archive links to them as well, to avoid giving them any advertiser money.

And yeah, I'm sure that their comment sections on this in the USA were so fucking toxic.

Its opinion pieces have been getting worse and worse since 2010 at least with actual SJW arguments about defining racism to exclude anti white sentiment and articles defending the thinking behind rad fem nonsense like #killallmen being not uncommon. The commetariat has been more and more critical of these poor arguments, but generally very reasonable with a broad range of views from the centre and left.

Claiming comments are abusive has been a ridiculous excuse to censure opinion. This article about a woman who took her three year old to join isis. I read these before they were moderated and tge vast majority were people saying she was a terribly irresponsible mother and did not deserve sympathy or a platform to sell her book. A fair few were also critical of Islam, its control of women and the brainwashing inherent in that religion.Look at them now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/sophie-kasiki-isis-raqqa-child-radicalised

 

[Splendid]

Its opinion pieces have been getting worse and worse since 2010 at least with actual SJW arguments about defining racism to exclude anti white sentiment and articles defending the thinking behind rad fem nonsense like #killallmen being not uncommon. The commetariat has been more and more critical of these poor arguments, but generally very reasonable with a broad range of views from the centre and left.

Claiming comments are abusive has been a ridiculous excuse to censure opinion. This article about a woman who took her three year old to join isis. I read these before they were moderated and tge vast majority were people saying she was a terribly irresponsible mother and did not deserve sympathy or a platform to sell her book. A fair few were also critical of Islam, its control of women and the brainwashing inherent in that religion.Look at them now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/sophie-kasiki-isis-raqqa-child-radicalised

But is there a chance of a widespread boycott or is the left just going to eat this shit up because it's "their" newspaper?
I think that the best thing that could happen would be a boycott. If it has enough support and goes on long enough to actually put a dent into business, it would scare other media organizations into covering this sort of thing for fear of getting boycotted themselves.

I'm not saying it has to be the Guardian. In fact, I don't even think that they're the best target. One of the continental papers that were covering up the murders and gang rapes would be the ideal target, but I think that just one well executed one would resonate throughout Europe, and it might even make governments realize just how sick of this shit people are.

 

[AnOminous]

You don't have to trust their judgement, but their intentions aren't in question. They were targeting semi-organized, roving gangs of street thugs.

"Unaccompanied" doesn't add up to "gang" on any planet I live on.

 

[AnOminous]

Its opinion pieces have been getting worse and worse since 2010 at least with actual SJW arguments about defining racism to exclude anti white sentiment and articles defending the thinking behind rad fem nonsense like #killallmen being not uncommon. The commetariat has been more and more critical of these poor arguments, but generally very reasonable with a broad range of views from the centre and left.

Indeed. This is a breaking point for me with the Grauniad, and I have long been a (leftist) reader of it who usually agreed with at least a broad swath of its opinions.

This is contemptible.

I would find it completely acceptable for a publication to ban comments entirely. A lot of the better newspapers do that because, let's face it, comments are generally shit. I've read a lot of the editorials when a newspaper does away with these and they generally amount to "holy shit we looked at our comment section and God it fucking sucks, we're getting rid of it." That's entirely reasonable.

It's different when they're picking and choosing, though.

When they select a specific topic on which their readers have very strongly varying opinions, that's just viewpoint censorship. And I'm aware it's not "censorship" in the legal sense, I'm using the word loosely, but censoring because a particular viewpoint is disfavored is the most pernicious form of the phenomenon.

I'm not being naive here. I'm sure many of the comments on these articles fucking suck and are BNP tier and worse. But frankly, the migrant issue is one that directly affects people's interests and simply saying "hey you're not even allowed to talk about this" is going to get a resounding fuck you and, frankly, vigilante action of the exact sort we're seeing here which it didn't take a genius to see coming, you can go back in this thread and see this exact shit being predicted.

Holy shit, a mainstream British newspaper has gone full SJW. I hope they get boycotted to hell.

From now on, we should only post archive links to them as well, to avoid giving them any advertiser money.

And yeah, I'm sure that their comment sections on this in the USA were so fucking toxic.

I should note that the Grauniad is fairly unusual among newspapers in that its activities are funded by a perpetual trust so it doesn't actually have to cater to buyers exclusively. It could have zero income and still operate.

On the good side, this means its opinions are independent and can't easily be influenced by corporate outsiders.

On the bad side, this means it can basically shit on its own readers like it just did.

 

[Vitriol]

But is there a chance of a widespread boycott or is the left just going to eat this shit up because it's "their" newspaper?
I think that the best thing that could happen would be a boycott. If it has enough support and goes on long enough to actually put a dent into business, it would scare other media organizations into covering this sort of thing for fear of getting boycotted themselves.

I'm not saying it has to be the Guardian. In fact, I don't even think that they're the best target. One of the continental papers that were covering up the murders and gang rapes would be the ideal target, but I think that just one well executed one would resonate throughout Europe, and it might even make governments realize just how sick of this shit people are.

I doubt there will be a boycott- most people reading do so because their factual reporting and investigative stuff is generally good. Its really just the opinion pieces that are shite.

The most likely thing to change these papers would be a massive defeat for the German or Swedish govs in their next elections.

This thread has a tendency to describe this as an European problem. It is much more a Scandinavian and German one, the electorates of most other countries have elected right wing governments with anti immigration policies or, as in Denmark, such a large anti immigration opposition the gov has to adjust.

The refugee crisis is caused by the disproportionate influence of Germany within the EU coupled with the dysfunctional policies of the schengen zone relying on poorer and corrupt south European countries to maintain the borders.

The UK, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria are all heavily restricting 'refugees' and Greece and Italy are largely passing them through to Germany. France, Spain and the Netherlands have strict asylum rules which makes claiming difficult without documentation and gives less than their neighbours, for some reason the 'refugees' are less attracted to those countries.

The best thing that could happen for Europe would be a mass defeat for merkel and her govt. Unfortunately the election is in October 2017.

 

[Splendid]

I doubt there will be a boycott- most people reading do so because their factual reporting and investigative stuff is generally good. Its really just the opinion pieces that are shite.

The most likely thing to change these papers would be a massive defeat for the German or Swedish govs in their next elections.

This thread has a tendency to describe this as an European problem. It is much more a Scandinavian and German one, the electorates of most other countries have elected right wing governments with anti immigration policies or, as in Denmark, such a large anti immigration opposition the gov has to adjust.

The refugee crisis is caused by the disproportionate influence of Germany within the EU coupled with the dysfunctional policies of the schengen zone relying on poorer and corrupt south European countries to maintain the borders.

The UK, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria are all heavily restricting 'refugees' and Greece and Italy are largely passing them through to Germany. France, Spain and the Netherlands have strict asylum rules which makes claiming difficult without documentation and gives less than their neighbours, for some reason the 'refugees' are less attracted to those countries.

The best thing that could happen for Europe would be a mass defeat for merkel and her govt. Unfortunately the election is in October 2017.

Sounds to me like it's really an EU problem then, not a Scandinavian and German one. This was a predictable effect of the Schengen Area from the very beginning. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, people are getting up in arms about it.

To me, the problem seems to be that there are really two kinds of countries in the EU: Those that want a United States of Europe, and those that want a European Free Trade Agreement (like NAFTA.) Really, the EU should probably be split up into two organizations along those lines, and the Schengen Area should only be binding on countries in the former. What we have here is a central organization dominated by a few large interests dictating domestic policy to member nations. It's basically the UN, but with teeth, and I think we can all agree that if there's one thing the UN shouldn't have, it's that kind of power.

 

[Vitriol]

Sounds to me like it's really an EU problem then, not a Scandinavian and German one. This was a predictable effect of the Schengen Area from the very beginning. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, people are getting up in arms about it.

To me, the problem seems to be that there are really two kinds of countries in the EU: Those that want a United States of Europe, and those that want a European Free Trade Agreement (like NAFTA.) Really, the EU should probably be split up into two organizations along those lines, and the Schengen Area should only be binding on countries in the former. What we have here is a central organization dominated by a few large interests dictating domestic policy to member nations. It's basically the UN, but with teeth, and I think we can all agree that if there's one thing the UN shouldn't have, it's that kind of power.

Schengen is already not applicable throughout the union. But yeah I could have phrased that better and agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[Cosmos]

The guardian has decided as public opinion no longer matches their views they are no longer going to allow comments on Islamic immigration stories:

Fucking lol, how delusional are they?

All of the top-rated comments I saw on immigration articles contained zero bigotry. It was just people pointing out that, no, letting hundreds of thousands of people into your country- people who come from cultures that do not have the same respect for human life than Western cultures do- without even bothering to screen them first is a really stupid idea. But writers at the Guardian are so up their own asses that they're incapable of 1.) admitting that this entire migrant crisis has been one misstep after another and 2.) realizing that people are no longer drinking the Kool-Aid because the Cologne attacks and other migrant riots have become too big to ignore.

“The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

"Our feelings are hurt so we're shutting this entire thing down."

As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.

"unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation" So basically never? Like I said, the commenters were not just slinging around racial slurs. They made some very good points that should be addressed. And even if there are some commenters who are legitimately just being awful, just ignore them and engage with the polite commenters instead. It's really not that hard, especially if you actually care about getting more people to support your side.

I really think that they can't debate, because at this point their entire argument for allowing unchecked migration to continue is feels > reals. You can post whatever statistics, statements by officials, etc that you want, but the response will always be "Don't you care about REFUGEES, not all Muslims, all cultures are beautiful" etc.

“We want to host conversations where there is a constructive debate, where our audience can help us broaden our journalism with their expertise, their knowledge, their considered thoughts and opinions, and where they can use our site as a platform to make connections with the world and with those around them,” added Hamilton.

Bitch, I just told you that people are already willing to engage in a constructive debate. Seriously, how full of shit is this lady? She's going on and on about "broadening horizons" and allowing all sorts of different thoughts and opinions, but she's shutting commenting down because people are disagreeing with what the authors say. Her actions and her words are in direct contradiction.

This was not a retreat from commenting as a whole, she said; it was an acknowledgement, however, that some conversations had become toxic at an international level – “a change in mainstream public opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site”.

She's literally acknowledging that people are fed up with the migrant crisis and are demanding that their leaders take their responsibilities seriously. People have gone from "REFUGEES WELCOME!!!" to "Why are we allowing young men from stable countries to bust down our doors, spit on our values, and then demand special treatment?" It's become clear that many Syrian refugees don't even make it as far as the UK or Sweden because they don't want to risk the dangerous trip; this is especially true of families, women and children, and the weak/elderly. Economic migrants are taking advantage of their plight (which I hope I don't have tell you is disgusting) and buying fake IDs.

The mainstream public is also becoming more and more aware of the culture clash that is taking place. And given how long Westerners have fought for their freedom, they really don't appreciate people coming from countries where women are treated like livestock, LGBT people are murdered or arrested, and free speech/freedom of religion is almost nonexistent trying to enforce their "values" on the egalitarian West.

 

[Kazami Yuuka]

Ruse cruise alert! The hoax might be revealed, but the damage is already done:
"Teenage girl admits making up migrant rape claim that outraged Germany"

 

[Takayuki Yagami]

Ruse cruise alert! The hoax might be revealed, but the damage is already done:
"Teenage girl admits making up migrant rape claim that outraged Germany"

So? The fact that it wouldn't be at all surprising is an indictment of the situation anyway.

 

[millais]

Ruse cruise alert! The hoax might be revealed, but the damage is already done:
"Teenage girl admits making up migrant rape claim that outraged Germany"

No shit, the instant that story first hit the news, the German police instantly shot it down because their investigators hadn't turned up any incidence of rape of the Russian girl, they concluded her disappearance was wholly voluntary from interviewing her. The only reason it had any mainstream media coverage is because the Kremlin was trying to use the incident to gain some leverage in the Ukrainian sanctions negotiations and Russian state media wouldn't shut up about it for the rest of the week because they were trying to stir it up into a clickbaity moral outrage story that they could use to condemn the evil NATO.