|
Post by robeiae on Dec 19, 2016 15:23:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 16:37:48 GMT -5
Christ, this is the second German Christmas market incident in a week. German Christmas markets are such nice, harmless, jolly things, too.
WTF kind of world are we living in where people get mercilessly slaughtered when buying gift for their families? Or for that matter, praying?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 19, 2016 21:41:36 GMT -5
A world with a pernicious ideology that isn't going to stop costing lives until it's eradicated.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 20, 2016 8:16:52 GMT -5
This story is getting weird (still tragic, though). Apparently, there was someone in the passenger's seat who was found dead at the scene. It's being reported he's a Polish national and the truck was from a Polish construction company (carrying 25 tons of steel). Someone was picked up who was thought to be the driver, but that's looking less likely. The obvious conclusion here--I think--is that the truck was hijacked, the driver was murdered, and left in the cab. But no one is saying that. Meanwhile, Merkel is really on the hot seat now, fairly or unfairly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 10:16:14 GMT -5
It sounds like a hijacking.
And I feel really bad for Angela Merkel. I understand people pointing at a relative handful of alleged migrants who turned out to be terrorists or troublemakers. Sadly, of course, most of the migrants are people trying to get the hell away from the terrorists and troublemakers. If you let them in, you are risking letting in a few bad eggs with them. If you lock them out, many will die, and more in the next generation will turn to violence and hatred.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 20, 2016 11:08:45 GMT -5
And I feel really bad for Angela Merkel. I understand people pointing at a relative handful of alleged migrants who turned out to be terrorists or troublemakers. Sadly, of course, most of the migrants are people trying to get the hell away from the terrorists and troublemakers. If you let them in, you are risking letting in a few bad eggs with them. If you lock them out, many will die, and more in the next generation will turn to violence and hatred. I have a problem with the reasoning in your last statement. I don't think we (or Germany) has an obligation to take in refugees because we are responsible for preventing the next generation from growing up in violence in hatred. Bluntly, that's the responsibility of their societies. And we should do what we can to stabilize the places that are such hellholes right now, but unfortunately, sometimes what we can do is not much. Most migrants aren't terrorists, but there is no question that terrorists come with the refugees, and that letting in large numbers of refugees is implicitly accepting that you are going to suffer more terrorist attacks. That may be a price your country is willing to pay - but I think we need to stop considering it unthinkable to even question that wisdom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 11:20:37 GMT -5
And I feel really bad for Angela Merkel. I understand people pointing at a relative handful of alleged migrants who turned out to be terrorists or troublemakers. Sadly, of course, most of the migrants are people trying to get the hell away from the terrorists and troublemakers. If you let them in, you are risking letting in a few bad eggs with them. If you lock them out, many will die, and more in the next generation will turn to violence and hatred. I have a problem with the reasoning in your last statement. I don't think we (or Germany) has an obligation to take in refugees because we are responsible for preventing the next generation from growing up in violence in hatred. Bluntly, that's the responsibility of their societies. And we should do what we can to stabilize the places that are such hellholes right now, but unfortunately, sometimes what we can do is not much. Most migrants aren't terrorists, but there is no question that terrorists come with the refugees, and that letting in large numbers of refugees is implicitly accepting that you are going to suffer more terrorist attacks. That may be a price your country is willing to pay - but I think we need to stop considering it unthinkable to even question that wisdom. I don't think it unthinkable to question it. But it is a price I personally am willing to pay. (And of course, it is not up to me.) I imagine pretty much everyone here will disagree with me on this. I'm fine with that. But, for whatever it is worth, I'm saying it as a NYC resident, one who was here on 9/11 and saw the towers go down first hand -- and one who knows I'm more than ever at risk for a terrorist attack with Trump's family here and Trump himself planning regular weekly visits. I'd let more migrants in, despite the risk. I'd also dial back the TSA and the NSA and some of that other shit to some common sense precautions (e.g., locked cabin doors on planes). The whole goal of terrorists is not to kill a relative handful of people, but for us to be terrified, to disrupt and change our lives, to reject our own alleged values, and to spend a fortune doing it -- to make us tear ourselves down in our own hysteria. If we tear the plaque off the statue of liberty and put the fourth amendment in the shredder, we might reduce the attacks, but they'll still find a way through to attack us. And meanwhile, it's my belief we'll be less great as a nation. Rejecting desperate migrants and reducing our civil liberties seems to me inconsistent with what I grew up thinking our country stood for. To me, those values are more important than the modicum of safety we can purchase by their sacrifice. In the short run, I'm sure we'd get more attacks. In the long run, I submit it's possible we might get fewer. If they didn't succeed in making us run around like chickens with our heads cut off, and things continued as they were, what would be the point? They'd have a hard time killing all of us with their methods. If most migrants felt grateful for being given asylum, that's more on our side, and fewer on theirs. And I submit our individual odds of being killed by a terrorist would remain pretty minute.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 20, 2016 11:23:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 20, 2016 11:31:02 GMT -5
Rejecting desperate migrants and reducing our civil liberties seems to me inconsistent with what I grew up thinking our country stood for. To me, those values are more important than the modicum of safety we can purchase by their sacrifice. In the short run, I'm sure we'd get more attacks. In the long run, I submit it's possible we might get fewer. If they didn't succeed in making us run around like chickens with our heads cut off, and things continued as they were, what would be the point? They'd have a hard time killing all of us with their methods. If most migrants felt grateful for being given asylum, that's more on our side, and fewer on theirs. And I submit our individual odds of being killed by a terrorist would remain pretty minute. Rejecting (or at least, being very selective about accepting) migrants and reducing our civil liberties are two entirely different things. I only proposed considering one of those things. I am willing to accept more terrorist attacks, more crime, etc., to preserve our civil liberties. I am less sanguine about providing sanctuary for refugees (many of whom are actually economic migrants) and implicitly accepting a substantial number of terrorists and criminals whom we would otherwise turn back. I don't think it's our responsibility to take care of them, especially when we have millions of poor Americans who would benefit just as much from the help we are providing to non-Americans. Our responsibility should be limited to diplomatic or, with great discretion, military actions to try to curtail the bloodshed.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 20, 2016 11:39:58 GMT -5
In addition to what Amadan just said, I think our consciences can be eased and those poor refugees can be helped by working to establish aid and living accommodations in more neutral places in the ME. - Jordan? Turkey? Why force people to come to a completely foreign place and society so far from home, when there are alternatives closer by? Also, did Merkel realize when she threw out that open invitation to refugees, that so many desperate people would try to make it to Germany? How many of those have been abused by traffickers? Or died on the ocean trying to reach "The Promised Land"? It's crucial to think things through and be even a bit cynical when proposing policy for an entire country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 11:49:58 GMT -5
Yes, of course they are two different things. But I consider both to be pretty fundamental to what I have always understood American values to be. And I am willing to accept additional danger (and additional cost) to uphold those values.
I realize many are not. But it remains my opinion. Despise me if you must.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 20, 2016 11:54:21 GMT -5
Honestly, this discussion gets me really irate, because just about everywhere else, it's not even a discussion you can have. It's just stated as a moral imperative: "But refugees! Innocent women and children! That heartbreaking photo of the dead child on the beach! What kind of a monster doesn't want to help those people?"
This shit goes on every day. All over the world. It is not new.
Right now, Aleppo is the big hot spot getting the world's attention, but people are still being tortured, massacred, and enslaved in Africa, Asia, Latin America. Why don't we (and Germany) throw open our borders to all the oppressed and impoverished people of the world? Don't we have a responsibility? How can we not help them?
How about spending those resources on, say, the millions of sex trafficked victims here in the U.S., and in Europe? How about improving the lot of our own poor? Every dollar going to help a Syrian refugee is a dollar not helping someone in Flint, Michigan.
I'm not saying we shouldn't provide any kind of foreign aid or refugee relief, but it is not cruel or irresponsible to limit our obligations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 12:05:05 GMT -5
Honestly, this discussion gets me really irate, because just about everywhere else, it's not even a discussion you can have. It's just stated as a moral imperative: "But refugees! Innocent women and children! That heartbreaking photo of the dead child on the beach! What kind of a monster doesn't want to help those people?" This shit goes on every day. All over the world. It is not new. Right now, Aleppo is the big hot spot getting the world's attention, but people are still being tortured, massacred, and enslaved in Africa, Asia, Latin America. Why don't we (and Germany) throw open our borders to all the oppressed and impoverished people of the world? Don't we have a responsibility? How can we not help them? How about spending those resources on, say, the millions of sex trafficked victims here in the U.S., and in Europe? How about improving the lot of our own poor? Every dollar going to help a Syrian refugee is a dollar not helping someone in Flint, Michigan. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide any kind of foreign aid or refugee relief, but it is not cruel or irresponsible to limit our obligations. It is a discussion we can have here, however. Isn't that nice? I mean that quite sincerely. You're allowed to disagree with me as much as you like, and I shall, until the bitter end, uphold your right to do so. Nor shall I call you a bad person for it. Indeed, if anyone does lambaste you as a bad person for it, they'll be modded -- by me. And I understand your reasoning completely. I am simply giving my opinion and my priorities, with which you and every person on the forum are perfectly free to differ. I think we spend a lot of money on shit I'd like to see spent in other ways. E.g., the fortune spent on airport scanners, which pissed me off in every conceivable way, or the million a day NYC taxpayers will absorb to allow Trump's little snowflake to keep attending his precious school. Me, I'd rather see it spent to help people to the extent we can. And I agree -- there are suffering people other than those in Syria. Sure, we cannot help every person in the world. But we could certainly help more than we do. To the extent we limit our aid, I'd rather have it be on the basis that we can only help so many rather than "but a couple of them might have bad intentions, so let's keep 'em all out!"
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 21, 2016 8:00:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 21, 2016 11:33:33 GMT -5
Great, he had already been arrested months ago and found to have ties with extremist groups, but he was released.
|
|