The News Thread

[Satanstoenail]

Limiting immigration/refugees from war-torn countries, regardless of the reason for the war-tornness, but then again especially if NATO is involved, is effective. That it is odious to some of certain ideological sensibilities is in no way an argument against the unfortunate necessity of policy based on the realities of human cognition, sentimentalities, and ultimately action. While the ideology of neoliberalism and progressivism combined, most succinctly referred to as "invade the world - invite the world", is increasingly shown to be a failure in both aspects, it is the latter half which must be corrected most immediately, because the damage is already done.

The hatred of Israel by those of the Islamic persuasion surpasses hatred of any particular NATO country, yet Israel is relatively free of these incidents in comparison with NATO countries (with the exception of those persons interspersed originally in their geography!). Why? Because Israel pursues an effective policy of self-protection while NATO countries do not. If NATO countries want to look more and more like the Middle East save Israel, they should continue to invite the Middle East. To borrow, sarcastically, some of the words of Louis Armstrong: What a wonderful world (that would be)!

The backpack bomber in Manchester was born in England to Libyan refugee parents that arrived 20+ years ago. The plain fact of the matter is that limiting immigration will achieve nothing at this point except more resentment and radicalisation of the existing Muslim populace.

 

[Einherjar86]

But of course, limiting immigration isn't actually intended to counteract terrorism.

 

[CiG]

That's not a rebuttal to proposed immigration restrictions, unless you believe that immigration restrictions are the only element of a plan to deal with this issue?

You do that, as well as many other things. For example, stop allowing the most radical versions of the Quran to be handed out in prisons by clerics, funded by tax dollars.

 

[CiG]

Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained for the next five million years before venturing further afield.

But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

 

[Einherjar86]

You do that, as well as many other things.

I'm a jack of all trades.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

Very cool. Well, everything evolved from something else. Finding the "birthplace of humankind" as always struck me as a bit of an anthropological fantasy.

 

[rms]

EINNNNNNNNN

At that time climate change had turned Eastern Europe into an open savannah which forced apes to find new food sources, sparking a shift towards bipedalism, the researchers believe.

 

[CiG]

In fact, what @Satanstoenail's comment boils down to is this, in my opinion.

There are immigrants entering our countries right now with young kids who will grow up and become radicals and kill people and we'll be saying the same old "well the parents came 20 years ago so tightening immigration tomorrow wouldn't have even done anything" tripe.

 

[Dak]

The backpack bomber in Manchester was born in England to Libyan refugee parents that arrived 20+ years ago. The plain fact of the matter is that limiting immigration will achieve nothing at this point except more resentment and radicalisation of the existing Muslim populace.

It will limit more bomber kids of refugee parents in the future. If defensive measures spark more resentment or radicalization than are already present then this is a justification for a harsher response, not a laxer one. A negative response to protective measures shows latent malevolence or ignorance. Neither are welcome.

 

[Satanstoenail]

I was under the impression the conversation was about ways to address the things that are happening now, not in 20+ years. If we're talking about long-term solutions, maybe limiting our involvement in other countries affairs would be a better place to start? Perhaps then the immigrants/refugees who are in our countries would have less reason to want to kill us. I think it's probably not going to matter whether it's first, second or third generations of immigrants/refugees that are here as long as we keep blowing up their homelands.

 

[arg]

We must never do or not do something for fear of "angering the Muslims". That's cowardly pussy shit. Limit immigration and stop refugee intake because it will be good. If Muslims get pissed or do terrorist shit then lock up, deport or shoot them.

 

[rms]

the only thing probably minimizes muslim violence globally is to enable a more vicious police state. can't imagine that with Iraq and Afghan minimizing and a possible Israel/Palestine deal looming that now is a more obvious of a time to be a terrorist than a decade ago.

 

[CiG]

I was under the impression the conversation was about ways to address the things that are happening now, not in 20+ years.

We are addressing what is happening now. What is happening now is people are seeking refuge or immigrating to the west and in 20 years some of their kids will grow into terrorists, attack people and if this shitty forum is still here in 20 years you'll be saying the same thing.

If we're talking about long-term solutions, maybe limiting our involvement in other countries affairs would be a better place to start?

Why not both?

 

[Einherjar86]

We are addressing what is happening now. What is happening now is people are seeking refuge or immigrating to the west and in 20 years some of their kids will grow into terrorists, attack people and if this shitty forum is still here in 20 years you'll be saying the same thing.

"Sorry, we can't take you. You're fine people, but your kids are going to be major assholes."

 

[CiG]

Major assholes? That's a nice way to describe people who pledge loyalty to ISIS and then blow up little girls.

But no, the point is to take much less and work on countering the radicalisation that goes on among young Muslim men. I don't agree with a total immigration ban at all, but there is a vast middle ground between the kind of unchecked free flow of peoples that morons like Lily Allen want and total bans a la the alt-right.

Edit: We can't just keep taking in hundreds of thousands of Muslims anymore when current populations aren't even integrating and then 20 years down the track when the children of the immigrants murder people we brush it off by saying "well there's nothing we could have done and tightening immigration now won't change what happened" because that's bullshit.

It could change what happens 20 years from now, that's the point. You can't change the past.

 

[Einherjar86]

Major assholes? That's a nice way to describe people who pledge loyalty to ISIS and then blow up little girls.

Sorry, my bad--"Your kids are going to be evil losers."

 

[arg]

Britain and the US are both separated from the Middle East by oceans. The only way for refugees from those areas to reach us is if we actively let them in. We just need to stop government agencies and NGOs from doing that.

There is no reason to accept them even if they are not terrorists. If we keep all the refugees out, we would keep out all the terrorists that would spawn from refugees.

Then we can focus on the terrorists already here. Without adding to them.

 

[rms]

EINNNNNNNNN

@Einherjar86 hey you jerk read the quote and the piece that should challenge your views on evolutionary history!

 

[Dak]

I can't wait for a Muslim to bomb an abortion clinic.

sweatingwhichbuttonmeme.jpg

 

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjar86 hey you jerk read the quote and the piece that should challenge your views on evolutionary history!

Fuck me, you're like a cockroach.

To some extent this is a newly discovered missing link. But missing links will always exist , because evolution is infinite chain of subsequent forms.

Exactly what I said in my comment above, by the way. Now, on to what seems to have attracted your attention:

At that time climate change had turned Eastern Europe into an open savannah which forced apes to find new food sources, sparking a shift towards bipedalism, the researchers believe.

...and the following:

The team believe that evolution of hominids may have been driven by dramatic environmental changes which sparked the formation of the North African Sahara more than seven million years ago and pushed species further North.

All this means is that environmental changes allowed for the subsequent success of new genetic mutations and extinction of older genetic forms. Nowhere does it suggest that the environment infiltrates and actively alters the genetic sequence.

 

[rms]

the dude literally argues that because they had to migrate so much further than they were used to that they developed stronger hind legs to which we would recognize in modern day humansssssssssssssssss

come on mannnnnnnnn