Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Germany axe attack on Train


seeder

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Just one is too many, I agree. 

But since there are few thousand, we can run around panicking and blaming, making them feel important and in control over us, doing them favour with our disagreements and paranoia. Or we can stay realistic and, if possible, efficient. Seeing terrorists everywhere is not efficient. It makes actual terrorists lost in the crowd of imaginary ones. 

We have past the point of efficiency. The attacks now are random acts of violence being imported from the third world. Ergo, migrants are bringing their home environment on to the streets and people of Europe. You might see a knife attack on a 5 yr old as an act of terrorism, but I'm sure to the Muslim attacker this was just another day in Allah's desert.

This is a clash of cultures at it's at worst. Frustratingly, all these North Africans aren't transforming in to civilized aristocrats like they were supposed to. Maybe we need to let in more? Hmmm...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, questionmark said:

yeh... but being efficient is not politically conductive in every case....

True. 

Today it's not exactly conductive because the head of that abomination is untouchable. But who knows if it will be so untouchable tomorrow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

We have past the point of efficiency. The attacks now are random acts of violence being imported from the third world. Ergo, migrants are bringing their home environment on to the streets and people of Europe. You might see a knife attack on a 5 yr old as an act of terrorism, but I'm sure to the Muslim attacker this was just another day in Allah's desert.

This is a clash of cultures at it's at worst. Frustratingly, all these North Africans aren't transforming in to civilized aristocrats like they were supposed to. Maybe we need to let in more? Hmmm...

Quite contrary, we're not near the point of efficiency yet. 

It would be nice to pray or vibrate positively we never reach it. But we probably will. 

And if that day comes, I want to be able to say that I personally didn't contribute to it. That I did what I could to prevent it. 

It's truly important to me, that I know the chances were given. 

 

About letting people in... to be honest, I don't like them. But they are people. I wouldn't like to find myself in their shoes and I would be grateful if someone helped me if I did find myself in their shoes. I personally feel I have no right to complain about people in desperate need being helped.

Some of them will be grateful. Others won't. Some of us will be patient. Others won't. And that's how we'll become efficient, if there's no political miracles in the meantime.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

About letting people in... to be honest, I don't like them. But they are people. I wouldn't like to find myself in their shoes and I would be grateful if someone helped me if I did find myself in their shoes. I personally feel I have no right to complain about people in desperate need being helped.

Some of them will be grateful. Others won't. Some of us will be patient. Others won't. And that's how we'll become efficient, if there's no political miracles in the meantime.    

Well said. I feel like the western nations who support the military intervention in these nations have a moral obligation to aid in relocating these refugees. There will be growing pains and no quick fix to the problems to be sure but theyre still people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well said. I feel like the western nations who support the military intervention in these nations have a moral obligation to aid in relocating these refugees. There will be growing pains and no quick fix to the problems to be sure but theyre still people. 

I'd only add that it seems to me this recent influx was Russian idea. Not all of the migrants, North Africans would keep floating to Italy as they did, what else can they do, in a way. But the relocated Syria was moved towards Western Europe on purpose, as an attempt to destabilize Europe, make its hands full so Russia can expand undistrubed. They bought few central European leaders and the rest should fall under unrests caused with migrant waves. It's one cunning plan, but as the most of cunning plans it has one fault: it's not working. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Well said. I feel like the western nations who support the military intervention in these nations have a moral obligation to aid in relocating these refugees. There will be growing pains and no quick fix to the problems to be sure but theyre still people. 

I think they should have a moral obligation to rebuild the countries they destroy. I'm sure many of those displaced by our government's BS would much rather have their old home back then start over in a foreign country. Rebuild the hospitals, roads, schools...make their country better off than it was. That's how you lift not just a family out of poverty, but an entire nation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I think they should have a moral obligation to rebuild the countries they destroy. I'm sure many of those displaced by our government's BS would much rather have their old home back then start over in a foreign country. Rebuild the hospitals, roads, schools...make their country better off than it was. That's how you lift not just a family out of poverty, but an entire nation.

Agreed but thanks to the western nations creating a lawless wasteland where extremists thrive its a bit more complicated than civil reconstruction projects. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Agreed but thanks to the western nations creating a lawless wasteland where extremists thrive its a bit more complicated than civil reconstruction projects. 

Insanely complicated and you couldn't do it without offing a lot of people who wouldn't like the idea of losing their power in suddenly employed population that has something to live for. But one can dream, right? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Well said. I feel like the western nations who support the military intervention in these nations have a moral obligation to aid in relocating these refugees. There will be growing pains and no quick fix to the problems to be sure but theyre still people. 

So, if the US had done nothing (acted isolationist) we'd have zero responsibility to the Syrians?

I do think that if there is a repressive regime and people flee, we should aid those who want to leave, if they can pass the requirements (background checks, etc...) in order to do so.

I don't think we should ever just open up and allow a flood of people to migrate, that has over and over again shown to be a poor choice.

23 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

I think they should have a moral obligation to rebuild the countries they destroy. I'm sure many of those displaced by our government's BS would much rather have their old home back then start over in a foreign country. Rebuild the hospitals, roads, schools...make their country better off than it was. That's how you lift not just a family out of poverty, but an entire nation.

I don't feel the reason the US attacks a nation should be the variable whether we have an obligation or not. I feel, such as with Afghanistan, if the attack could have been done to target high value targets as a punishment, we should have done so, and had no obligation to rebuild. There was no real reason to put boots on the ground and "Conquer" Afghanistan. They do something that warrants a response, you respond, and you let them do the repairs. Otherwise where is the punishment?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, if the US had done nothing (acted isolationist) we'd have zero responsibility to the Syrians?

I do think that if there is a repressive regime and people flee, we should aid those who want to leave, if they can pass the requirements (background checks, etc...) in order to do so.

I don't think we should ever just open up and allow a flood of people to migrate, that has over and over again shown to be a poor choice.

I don't feel the reason the US attacks a nation should be the variable whether we have an obligation or not. I feel, such as with Afghanistan, if the attack could have been done to target high value targets as a punishment, we should have done so, and had no obligation to rebuild. There was no real reason to put boots on the ground and "Conquer" Afghanistan. They do something that warrants a response, you respond, and you let them do the repairs. Otherwise where is the punishment?

If the US had done nothing, nothing would have happened beyond the standard flow of political refugees. Not the absolute flood of humanity we are seeing now. There wasnt a humanitarian crisis happening, they were as close to a first world nation as you will find in the region and there was no threat to our nation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If the US had done nothing, nothing would have happened beyond the standard flow of political refugees. Not the absolute flood of humanity we are seeing now. There wasnt a humanitarian crisis happening, they were as close to a first world nation as you will find in the region and there was no threat to our nation.  

 

So ISIS wouldn't have tried to take Syria? Or, are we including ISIS as a US backed operation? 

I thought the majority of refugees were fleeing War, and specifically between ISIS and the Syriaian government. 

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieChecker said:

So ISIS wouldn't have tried to take Syria? Or, are we including ISIS as a US backed operation? 

Even if we suspend the concept that ISIS is a US backed operation we can say without a doubt that US attempts at arming "moderate muslims" (who they knew were alqaueda affiliated, but I digress) have seriously aided ISIS. Without that material support and without the US attacking the established government's defense capabilities ISIS wouldnt be the effective military force it is and would have most likely been dispatched by Assads forces by now ( thats my guess anyways) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Even if we suspend the concept that ISIS is a US backed operation we can say without a doubt that US attempts at arming "moderate muslims" (who they knew were alqaueda affiliated, but I digress) have seriously aided ISIS. Without that material support and without the US attacking the established government's defense capabilities ISIS wouldnt be the effective military force it is and would have most likely been dispatched by Assads forces by now ( thats my guess anyways) 

I guess that is a possibility, especially with the ISIS inside Syria, rather then Iraq. The Iraqi ISIS supposedly collected a lot of weapons from the Iraqi Army, who folded up like a tent at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.