I Am German

Germans, how do you feel about how your government lied to you and how your left-wing press lied to you about the New Year's Eve riots?

They told you the mobs weren't necessarily Middle Easterners. They lied. They told you the attackers weren't asylum-seekers. They lied.

They're saying the assaulted women weren't careful enough. Yea, they violated Islamic custom about women going about in public. They're saying criticism of the migration is worse than the riots themselves.

The assaults on women took place not only in Koln, but many places in Europe. They appear likely to have been coordinated, perhaps even by Islamic State. They are giving you a clear message: "We own Europe now. We will do as we please with the infidels."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ColdPenguin25

Well. For the U.S., we're only accepting 1% combat-aged males. Most of the 20-60,000 refugees we're taking in are women and children. I find it difficult to believe that Germany would just indiscriminately let anyone in their borders. I know for the U.S., the U.N. and the U.S. basically scan them and determine whether or not they're a threat. This is a year to two year long process.

If terrorists wanted to get into the country, they would do so through other, easier, faster means. You should be more worried about tourism. But, I get the concern over it. I wouldn't really want refugees to be mixed into the general population. The point of a refugee system is to grant safe haven until their own country is safe again. Not resettlement.

The German population is 80 million. There are just over 1.5 million Syrian refugees, and Germany accepted like, less than 100,000. If this was coordinated by I.S., I hardly think they have achieved anything. They'd have people blowing themselves up, not wielding wooden planks. A large percentage of refugees are simply people who don't want to die from being blown up in a country that pretty much every country is dropping bombs on.

conceptualclarity · M

The refugees find safety from war in Jordan and Turkey. They don't need to go to Europe for that. The migration to Europe is for economic motives and in some instances for infiltration purposes: Islamic State has stated openly that they are exploiting the migration.

ColdPenguin25

Jordan really isn't very far away from the damage, and ISIS has been looking at launching a full-scale assault on Jordan. Naturally, Europe is the safest place to be. In addition, Turkey has like 1,000,000 Syrian refugees, already. They're taking on a massive influx of people and a massive cost. Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, they're already taking in massive amounts of refugees. And at the smaller level of 100,000, they can be more accurately examined. I totally agree that you don't want to just open the floodgates and let anyone in, but those are people running for their lives. Economic motives for Germany? That would make sense, I suppose. Those are still people, you know. People who've had bombs dropped on their homes, their women and daughters raped by ISIS; their brothers, husbands, uncles killed.

A third of their fighting force is already demolished under a year of bombing runs. That was in December, and only the U.S. reported kills. And after that attack on Paris, France doubled up the bombs they're dropping. The more they kick the hornets nest, the more they're going to pay for it. Hardly seems worth it for a hundred civilian lives, imo. Of course, ISIS is pretty stupid picking a fight with the whole modern world, so I don't know. I understand your concern. A lot of people in the U.S. have the same concern. Hell, 32 states have refused to take in refugees, even though we studiously examine any refugees we let into the country--not only that, the U.N. does, too, separately.

And ISIS is going to brag about anything they can to instill fear into the West. They're weak. Otherwise they wouldn't launch terrorist attacks on citizens. They would be attacking military bases and government buildings. When you get China, Russia, Europe, and the United States all pissed off at you, you're dead. ISIS is not long for this world. And more, Australia, Canada, and some Arabic nations, as well. Hell. Everyone.

Not to mention that 12,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Syria, people from Europe and America who have passports...The guys who attacked Paris, a couple of them had passports, I believe. Not only that, but the international hacker group Anonymous is attacking their online propaganda machine. Op. Paris. In any case, I would learn about Germany's refugee policy. Chances are it's similar to the U.S.'s, and both the U.N. and Germany examine refugees closely before allowing them entry. Though, granted, I don't know exactly what incident you're talking about in Germany. I looked for Germany riots, but couldn't find anything recent.

conceptualclarity · M

"those are people running for their lives."
No, what I'm hearing is that a large majority of the migrants coming through Turkey are not from Iraq or Syria. They are coming for jobs and/or welfare.

"I would learn about Germany's refugee policy. Chances are it's similar to the U.S.'s, and both the U.N. and Germany examine refugees closely before allowing them entry."
Germany has just let the migrants flood in. They are not being screened before they enter.

"I looked for Germany riots, but couldn't find anything recent."
Sources aren't using the word riots, but New Year's eve is when it happened. If you want it badly enough, I'll give you some links.

The strength of ISIS is at all times a matter of the weakness of its foes. Obama's emotional involvement with Islam and Muslims going back to his boyhood is far deeper than his emotional connection to the United States. As a result he has no appetite for the level of effort needed to stamp out Islamic State.

ColdPenguin25

Well, firstly, sorry for how long this is. And if they just open the floodgates....That's definitely going to turn out badly.

We've got some commando troops on the ground in Syria aiming to take out ISIS leaders. A 50 country--a biiiiig--coalition, including several Arabic countries, headed by the U.S. are dropping a shitload of bombs on ISIS. The U.S. alone has dropped over 1,000 airstrike attacks in 2016, alone. Two weeks, 1,000 bombs. And fucking up their oil fields will cripple them economically. And you can bet the French are dropping more than that after the terrorist attack on them. Not to mention Russia and all the others.

My dad says the same thing about President Obama. "*Our king* is a Muslim." Even if he were, there's a differentiation between 3rd world extremists who rape little girls and kill fellow Muslims and Christians and anyone else who doesn't agree with them: and commit terrible crimes. You can see interviews of some little Muslim girl refugees who were raped and held prisoner, just to be used as sex toys. Point being even if he was Muslim-loving, a super-educated American Muslim who lives more peacefully than the many young white males my age who go on killing sprees 200-300+ times a year.

In President Obama's State of The Union, he makes it pretty clear. Just a minute long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GniAINe5WJY Granted he was also full of shit on several points like job growth and the fucking terrible healthcare bill. And probably some other stuff. I have no illusions to call the President a *good* President, but I don't think he's Muslim loving, in that sense. He has ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of them, after all. And really, President Obama is a lot closer on the right than the typical leftist Democrat. He uses force a lot more than a typical Democrat would.

Sending more troops over to the Middle East isn't going to solve anything, anyway. You kill ISIS, another terrorist group pops up. That shit over there is just fucked up. Why would we risk our own soldiers, our peoples' lives, when they're not even a threat? And even still, we're still fucking them up with bombs. Fuck the loathsome pieces of shit. They need to die. But, I don't question the U.S.'s dedication to eliminating terrorists, or the Presidents. And shit. We just got out of two LONG wars that did not help our economy, at all. They say war is good for the economy, but that was only WWII. War is a huge expense. Last thing we need is more dead Americans and breaking the piggy bank further. ISIS is dead, bro. Just a matter of time.

Essentially, ISIS is pretty much everyone's enemy. Including Muslim's. They're committing ethnic genocide: killing thousands of shia Muslims, after all. ISIS commits crimes against *HUMANITY*. Mass murdering Muslims, Christians, Agnostic, Atheist, doesn't matter to them. It's like if Catholics started hunting down Baptists and Atheists and killing thousands of them, even though they're both Christian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5MQTTzE5g

conceptualclarity · M

The "coalition" against IS is a colossal joke. Only a few countries have done anything.

"the many young white males my age who go on killing sprees 200-300+ times a year."
That is FAR from true. The overwhelming majority of so-called "mass shootings" are committed by gang members. Gang members are nearly all black or Latino; only inside prisons are there non-Hispanic white gangs. If you subtract gang mass shootings, the US is not one of the top countries for mass shootings. In the US we have this disgraceful situation: small wars are allowed to rage in the black and Latino neighborhoods of our cities. These wars could be suppressed if there were political will. What would suppress them is not gun control, but occupation. The way you stop a war is with occupation. These neighborhoods should be occupied by beefed-up police forces and National Guard units until the gangs are liquidated. It doesn't happen because liberals hate the imagery of partly or mostly white forces dragging off to jail and prison young men of color, even if those young men are the dregs of their communities, even though those young men are making their areas a living hell for law-abiding blacks and Latinos. Liberals would rather have this beyond disgraceful status quo continue than have bad guys of color be subdued by white good guys.

I long resisted the idea that Obama is a Muslim because he clearly rejects Islam's moral teachings. Now I understand that Obama bears allegiance to an Islam that exists in liberals' minds only: an Islam that is separable from Islam's moral teachings. Muslims do not believe Islam is separable from Islam's moral teachings. I believe that Obama's experience, after he was sent back to live in the US, of people who call themselves Christians while imagining that Christianity is separable from Christianity's moral teachings (people who have always been known within Christianity as "heretics"), gave him the idea that he could embrace an imaginary version of Islam having an only partly inspired Quran and separable from Islam's moral teachings. In other words, a DIY Islam.

"I don't think he's Muslim loving, in that sense. He has ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of them, after all."
After Obama won re-election, drone strikes against Islamist terrorists dramatically decreased to the point where now they seldom occur outside the IS theater.

"You kill ISIS, another terrorist group pops up."
MiddleEasterners can smell weakness a mile away, but they respect power. When the US did the surge in Iraq, the great flocking of terrorist recruits to Iraq came to an end. Exterminate IS, and it will make a big impression.

"Why would we risk our own soldiers, our peoples' lives, when they're not even a threat?"
As long as this "caliphate" is allowed to exist, Muslims everywhere will believe Allah is mightily blessing the Jihad, and they should get a piece of it by doing deeds like those of late in San Bernadino and Philadelphia. The US must send them the message that Allah is NOT blessing the Jihad, that the Jihad is cursed.

"ISIS is dead, bro. Just a matter of time."
It depends on which party wins the 2016 election.

ColdPenguin25

It doesn't happen because full scale wars would break loose. If you send a military force in to squash gangs, that inspires more gang members. The same as terrorists. If you occupy a nation, that sparks resistance. There would be even more bullets flying and even more innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. It's a point I didn't think about though; I'll have to look at the mass shooting statistics.

Exterminate ISIS. What if Russia or China occupied the U.S.? Or Germany, wherever you live. Would Americans or Germans be like "Oh shit, okay you win." ? Maybe at a certain point, but most Americans I know would fight to the death if someone occupied our country. More than that, what if someone invaded your home? Would it really matter what their reason was? You would have to trust them. Who would you trust to bust down your door and start fucking your house up trying to catch a thief? At what point would you be like, "Okay, mother fucker, you're ruining my house: take this somewhere else."

No way. I don't think there's one politician, or even one non-extremist Muslim in America who doesn't see ISIS as something that needs to be squashed. I'm super on the left; I'm not liberal, but I am way on the left. And even I'm like "kill those mother fuckers." ISIS is a threat to pretty much everyone. The Republicans will definitely go all out, if one is elected. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would, I have no doubt, put an end to ISIS, as well. And even then, ISIS is more a threat to Europe. If they keep spreading out, they'll possibly become a threat to China. And Russia has interests in the Middle East; they don't want ISIS controlling shit.

conceptualclarity · M

"If you occupy a nation, that sparks resistance."
It depends on whether you are serious. If you aren't serious, as with Don Rumsfeld and Iraq after the victory in 2003, you get resistance. The die was cast when he gave orders to sit back and watch while looters ran wild after Saddam fled into hiding. If you are humane but serious, like the Allies in Germany and the US in Japan after WWII, it doesn't spark resistance, and it won't inspire more gang members. People get the message and they get on with their lives.

"What if Russia or China occupied the U.S.? Or Germany, wherever you live. Would Americans or Germans be like "Oh shit, okay you win." ?" As I just mentioned, that did happen to Germany already. Right now, I think America could not be pacified. However, the way we are letting Obama and the Supreme Court impose despotism, I am worried, very worried.

ColdPenguin25

The issue for gang violence is a socioeconomic one. If you crush resistance, people are still growing up in poverty. The issue is still going to remain. They're still going to seek a way to survive and thrive, which means they will turn to crime. The level at which you would have to crush them would spark protests, I'm sure. There's already the Black Lives Matter thing due to police brutality, even though a lot of the police actions are justified. Some of them definitely aren't. But, point is that if a bunch of poor people are being slaughtered, people aren't going to stand for it.

A despot would not allow a democratic election to take place. So if that's true, then there will be no election this year. He wouldn't have to justify stances to congress, either. In Vietnam, Johnson sent troops to fight in Vietnam while technically not calling it a war, if I recall correctly. Without congressional approval. If you ask me, the America is more a corporatocracy than despotism. Maybe a corporate oligarchy. In capitalism, money is power. Obama got elected largely due to funds he received from several corporate health.

Remember, he was running on the premise of a Single Payer Healthcare system like Canada and places in Europe. Then he came out with this bullshit Obamacare thing which is basically just blackmailing the American people into getting health insurance, even if they can't afford it. The funny thing is it's called the "Affordable Care Act." Oh man. Kills me every time. To understand what a bill does, all you have to do is read it as the opposite of what it is. "The bill to prevent the slaughter of kitties and puppies." actually means a bill to kill all kittens and puppies.

Although, yeah, the indefinite detention of American citizens to find terrorists based on no fair trial that Obama passed in 201..2 I think, is pretty scary.

Btw, you're a really good debater. You don't get overly emotional.