Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Vive la France

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    You have progressed in the last week (when your quoted post above was made), from accusing the muslim migrants of criminal activity, to being "incompatible" with certain host EU cultures. That is a slight improvement.

    The incompatible argument leads to the next question: What is the portion of muslims in France? It is at 7-9%, according to world atlas link (below). Here's a quote from that link, on an additional reason why I think EU countries are accepting large numbers:

    http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/r...of-france.html

    Supposing France adopts a more proactive approach to acculturation, similar to Germany's, they may be able to reduce the portion of muslims. It might not be the low figure of around 5% that Germany has, but let's face some history: France was a much more enthusiastic practitioner of colonial exploitation in muslim countries, than was Germany. Ex-colonies have some perks with the ex-empire.

    As Voland notes, many of the muslims there should be sent back, as they prove they are not intending to acculturate to their host country. It is my belief that for those muslim immigrants who stay, their host country (France in this case) hopes the first generation will have many children born in the country. That was the very same reason the US gov't. has allowed a de facto refugee surge from Latin America -to stave off a population collapse in reaction to a secure yet somewhat expensive material lifestyle. However, the second and succeeding generations will likely follow the same strategy as their non-muslim countrymen, in having small families. The reason this isn't discussed in much of the press is because the subject is (at the same time) "dull socioeconomics" and an uncomfortable look at the "end game" for capitalism as we know it.

    The temporary nature of much of the recent muslim refugee population, due to a "failing state" crisis in nearby ME countries, was already well argued by Voland. Likewise, V.'s reasoning behind the EU major states accepting large numbers, for now.
    What, you don't think Muslims can be incompatible with western culture and also involved in crime?

    You never did respond to the question I posed in that post: "Who else has this attitude that women don't belong out in public, and if they are they must be sluts? "

    Who else would attack women with a hammer shouting Allah Akbar, which just happened in France?

    ?


    • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

      What, you don't think Muslims can be incompatible with western culture and also involved in crime?

      You never did respond to the question I posed in that post: "Who else has this attitude that women don't belong out in public, and if they are they must be sluts? "

      Who else would attack women with a hammer shouting Allah Akbar, which just happened in France?
      The answer to your question was already answered, more than once. I want plain-clothes police to remove the dysfunctionals from the streets. Those refugees who can't deal with women in the streets without a male escort, should be easy to provoke (no entrapment needed), then removed from France. No big deal, no prosecution in the courts necessary. They just need to get started on the cleanup.

      ?


      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

        The answer to your question was already answered, more than once. I want plain-clothes police to remove the dysfunctionals from the streets. Those refugees who can't deal with women in the streets without a male escort, should be easy to provoke (no entrapment needed), then removed from France. No big deal, no prosecution in the courts necessary. They just need to get started on the cleanup.
        There doesn't seem to be any appetite for doing what you suggest. Besides you can't throw people out of the country without due process - unless you want to break the international rules you have agreed to.
        Macron wants to give them all a 500 euro "cultural pass". That ought to fix everything. lol

        ?


        • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          There doesn't seem to be any appetite for doing what you suggest. Besides you can't throw people out of the country without due process - unless you want to break the international rules you have agreed to.
          Macron wants to give them all a 500 euro "cultural pass". That ought to fix everything. lol
          Are you serious? Unless France provided full citizenship to temporary refugees, the police can start the process to throw the most culturally impaired out of the country. Here is how it works: -Woman walks into the "muslim mafia" cafe that you describe. Low impulse-control muslim calls her a slut and tells her to leave immediately. She asks if this is a private club, because she has a right to enter unless it's a private club. Low impulse moron tells her that if she doesn't leave, she will be assaulted. Other macho types in the cafe add their two cents, in their native language. The woman leaves, nods to the van across the street (driver nods back), and 20 cops go into the cafe. They clear out the cafe, prosecute everyone who threatened the woman, and deport them immediately.

          She got a good recording of an illegal threat against her person in a public place, for a slam dunk case. Due process.

          ?


          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Are you serious? Unless France provided full citizenship to temporary refugees, the police can start the process to throw the most culturally impaired out of the country. Here is how it works: -Woman walks into the "muslim mafia" cafe that you describe. Low impulse-control muslim calls her a slut and tells her to leave immediately. She asks if this is a private club, because she has a right to enter unless it's a private club. Low impulse moron tells her that if she doesn't leave, she will be assaulted. Other macho types in the cafe add their two cents, in their native language. The woman leaves, nods to the van across the street (driver nods back), and 20 cops go into the cafe. They clear out the cafe, prosecute everyone who threatened the woman, and deport them immediately.

            She got a good recording of an illegal threat against her person in a public place, for a slam dunk case. Due process.
            Temporary refugees? What are they, people who have applied for refugee status but have not gained it as yet? How many of the people causing problems are in that category?

            In the scenario you describe the people would be "prosecuted" as you say. That means a trial - due process. If found guilty the judge could order them deported or not depending on several factors. The police cannot throw people out of the country.

            It is much harder to get rid of people once they are in the country than it is to keep them out in the first place, which is what the majority of Europeans want to do.

            ?


            • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

              Temporary refugees? What are they, people who have applied for refugee status but have not gained it as yet? How many of the people causing problems are in that category?

              In the scenario you describe the people would be "prosecuted" as you say. That means a trial - due process. If found guilty the judge could order them deported or not depending on several factors. The police cannot throw people out of the country.

              It is much harder to get rid of people once they are in the country than it is to keep them out in the first place, which is what the majority of Europeans want to do.
              Let's answer your first question. Voland answered it already, but I'll answer it again. Yes, many are temporary refugees, and some of those will not be given permanent status. Of those who will leave France, some will leave voluntarily (don't like European cultures, have stronger ties to the ME homeland); others will leave involuntarily, perhaps to avoid prosecution and incarceration.

              Then your point about police throwing dysfunctional refugees out of the country. Good observation; I should always note "conviction" after prosecution. Should be a piece of cake to get the conviction, at least with the worst of the refugees. One issue is qualified staff to handle immigration (fe judges), but that's what refugee crisis tend to do with regional countries -increase debt in the short term. Once a country publishes their efforts to boot dysfunctionals out (or place in hoosegow), it should help cut down on other bad actors trying to get in on refugee status.

              ?


              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                Let's answer your first question. Voland answered it already, but I'll answer it again. Yes, many are temporary refugees, and some of those will not be given permanent status. Of those who will leave France, some will leave voluntarily (don't like European cultures, have stronger ties to the ME homeland); others will leave involuntarily, perhaps to avoid prosecution and incarceration.

                Then your point about police throwing dysfunctional refugees out of the country. Good observation; I should always note "conviction" after prosecution. Should be a piece of cake to get the conviction, at least with the worst of the refugees. One issue is qualified staff to handle immigration (fe judges), but that's what refugee crisis tend to do with regional countries -increase debt in the short term. Once a country publishes their efforts to boot dysfunctionals out (or place in hoosegow), it should help cut down on other bad actors trying to get in on refugee status.
                First of all, its not just a refugee issue.

                Real, effective action to " boot dysfunctionals out " would help, but that doesn't happen. Nobody is deported for being "dysfunctional". Once these people are in the country they can say whatever they want on the street. "whats up your dress slut", whatever, its not illegal. And when you bring in enough of them so whole neighborhoods become a gauntlet of this kind of abuse, well too bad, its too late now.

                ?


                • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  First of all, its not just a refugee issue.

                  Real, effective action to " boot dysfunctionals out " would help, but that doesn't happen. Nobody is deported for being "dysfunctional". Once these people are in the country they can say whatever they want on the street. "whats up your dress slut", whatever, its not illegal. And when you bring in enough of them so whole neighborhoods become a gauntlet of this kind of abuse, well too bad, its too late now.
                  We've been going back and forth for several pages, but now its "not just a refugee issue"? Poorly behaved French pimps are not the issue here, even when they abuse in the same manner. The reference was poorly behaved muslim immigrants, apparently the majority being recently arrived refugees. If an immigrant arrives in France under normal circumstances (not a refugee), that means he arrives as a worker, perhaps with professional credentials. Back to this point, the police can get a decent evaluation of this problem, by going in "wired" (recording events happening around the officer). While they won't be able to arrest and convict anyone just for being rude, they will get a good record of abuse, and they will be able to easily provoke some into illegal threats. Your reference noted a cafe that kept out women; if the law in France is similar to the US, that would only be legal if the cafe were in fact a private club. Hence my example of "booting out" a large number (for that neighborhood) of dysfunctional refugees after one police action. That would help the neighborhood in two ways:
                  -Reduce the number of misfits abusing their neighbors, and
                  -Send a message to others having difficulty adjusting to Parisian customs; if a line is crossed, that person is exposed to prosecution. If they are there on temporary status, they could be sent back.

                  - Pick your neighborhood in a large city with blighted areas, anywhere in the world. As already stated, it was too late for a few neighborhoods as far as rude and threatening behavior, way before this latest refugee crisis. Could France cut down on a certain amount of abuse by shutting down all muslim refugee programs? All muslim immigration, regardless? That question could only be answered by the wired survey I suggest. That has to be done before France justifies shutting down the refugee program altogether. Why? Another question that was already answered: If the refugee crisis is kept "inside" a failing state, it could destabilize the region much more than it already is; homicidal sociopaths become the preferred leadership style, warlords preside like they do in Somalia. France is part of the wider region. Professionals and well-behaved workers will be abused in their (failing) home countries; temp refugee programs is one obvious way to re-build a state after the sociopaths are controlled.
                  Last edited by radcentr; 09-17-2017, 08:20 PM.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                    We've been going back and forth for several pages, but now its "not just a refugee issue"? Poorly behaved French pimps are not the issue here, even when they abuse in the same manner. The reference was poorly behaved muslim immigrants, apparently the majority being recently arrived refugees. If an immigrant arrives in France under normal circumstances (not a refugee), that means he arrives as a worker, perhaps with professional credentials. Back to this point, the police can get a decent evaluation of this problem, by going in "wired" (recording events happening around the officer). While they won't be able to arrest and convict anyone just for being rude, they will get a good record of abuse, and they will be able to easily provoke some into illegal threats. Your reference noted a cafe that kept out women; if the law in France is similar to the US, that would only be legal if the cafe were in fact a private club. Hence my example of "booting out" a large number (for that neighborhood) of dysfunctional refugees after one police action. That would help the neighborhood in two ways:
                    -Reduce the number of misfits abusing their neighbors, and
                    -Send a message to others having difficulty adjusting to Parisian customs; if a line is crossed, that person is exposed to prosecution. If they are there on temporary status, they could be sent back.

                    - Pick your neighborhood in a large city with blighted areas, anywhere in the world. As already stated, it was too late for a few neighborhoods as far as rude and threatening behavior, way before this latest refugee crisis. Could France cut down on a certain amount of abuse by shutting down all muslim refugee programs? All muslim immigration, regardless? That question could only be answered by the wired survey I suggest. That has to be done before France justifies shutting down the refugee program altogether. Why? Another question that was already answered: If the refugee crisis is kept "inside" a failing state, it could destabilize the region much more than it already is; homicidal sociopaths become the preferred leadership style, warlords preside like they do in Somalia. France is part of the wider region. Professionals and well-behaved workers will be abused in their (failing) home countries; temp refugee programs is one obvious way to re-build a state after the sociopaths are controlled.
                    Refugees are certainly part of the picture, but not all of it. France was having big problems with Muslim immigrants well before 2015. Remember all those riots? The guy with the cafe is another example. Its doubtful he was a refugee.

                    Most refugees just want to be able to go home. If we in the west really cared about the millions of Syrians in camps in neighboring countries we would use our overwhelming military strength to go in there, impose order, provide security while a legitimate regime is set up, and allow all those millions to return to their homes.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                      Refugees are certainly part of the picture, but not all of it. France was having big problems with Muslim immigrants well before 2015. Remember all those riots? The guy with the cafe is another example. Its doubtful he was a refugee.

                      Most refugees just want to be able to go home. If we in the west really cared about the millions of Syrians in camps in neighboring countries we would use our overwhelming military strength to go in there, impose order, provide security while a legitimate regime is set up, and allow all those millions to return to their homes.
                      Been there, done that, and mostly failed. It was called "Empire Building". Overwhelming military strength failed in Vietnam, since the developed power (the USA in this case) downplayed the importance of domestic political and economic leadership. South Vietnam's leadership was so blindly corrupt and rigid, that it made certain we would fail to defeat a determined communist rebellion.

                      Suppose we follow a policy of "polishing diamonds", or constantly choosing leaders that are slightly less corrupt than the last ones, while constantly removing worse leaders. In that case, a military campaign has a reasonable end objective. Otherwise, we're backing losers in-country, with the longer term result (unintended) of defeating our own objectives.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        Chatham House is a well respected organization, and in their survey they asked 10,000 people from 10 EU countries to agree or disagree with a very simple straight forward statement. "All further immigration from mostly Mulsim countries should be stopped." Only 19% of respondents in Germany disagreed with that statement. The message from that is undeniable. Most Germans think they have quite enough Muslims in their country.


                        Yes, we know you found that poll. Yet you obviously dont know how to read polls. First of all, Chatham House does not disclose how respondents were picked,and that is a grave methodical issue. Secondly, it does not disclose wether and how the questions were translated ( questions can be easily made more "suggestive" by changing an adjective here or there f.e., which is something that anyone who ever did a poll him/herself can confirm to you. And yes, meanings can be lost or changed in translation). And if they were only asking people with english skills that completely distorts the result and would clearly not be representative.
                        Then, Europe is not a country, it is a continent with a collection of countries, an "average" across countries mixing different population sizes, different stages of economic development and prosperity, and thus different attitudes towards immigration is statistically rather meaningless. And as far as the countries themselves are concerned : How f.e. did the guys in charge rule out overlaps into anti-immigration sentiment in general ( which again can have more reasons than just xenophobia) ? Like in Poland, that is a country with barely any immigration, but millions of its own people living abroad as immigrants ( because they dont find adequate jobs at home) ? Of course they would vote "no". Or Hungary. Or Greece, whose young and ambitious ones are fleeing abroad themselves to escape unemployment at home ? Of course they would be against any suggestion of immigration from anywhere. Not to mention that they have a bunch of unresolved questions with their big muslim neighbor Turkey. The poll asking narrow questions while disregarding the diverse context of the countries polled makes it worthless, Im afraid.
                        For Germans, immigration is barely in the top 10 of concerns ( behind automatization of the workplace, the environment, old age poverty , or extremism ( that includes the islamic brand, as well as far left and far right violence). The closest I can reconsile the Chatham poll with the german ones that I am aware of is that the makers were confusing refugees and immigrants in translation ( which are not the same thing for Germans). Yes, noone wants a rerun of the events of autumn 2015, and easily more than 55 %. Which for some might be an anti-Islam statement, others will be rather thinking about logistical nightmares, sports and concert halls turned into emergency accomodation, trains packed with refugees heading everywhere in the country, schools hastily setting up language classes for around 350 000 children etc. The vast majority ( 80/85 %) support a "positive perspective" in the country for those matching conditions for residency (!), yet given a choice by far most support the governement taking steps to avoid a repetition of the big refugee wave of two years ago. Such as drawing up lists of "safe countries", that may suffer from multiple problems, but whose citizens will be rejected when applying for asylum. such as increasing deportations of those without valid status, such as strengthening the EUs external borders ( that IS currently happening between Italy and Libya), such as the Turkey deal ( the EU pays Turkey for handling by far most refugees from Syria and Iraq while taking a flexible monthly quota of vulnerable people, orphans, widows, religious minorities etc. or such as supporting the countries of origin of so-called "economic migrants" in efforts at good governance and job creation. Germany finances and sets up vocational training schemes/schools for skilled workers, based on its own very sucessful model in countries such as Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, Ukraine, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, to give local youth a perspective at home, instead of trying their luck in the EU ( and often ending up in illegality and criminal structures). There are also plenty of programs to train local police, public services and administration to make them fit for purpose, and to support the creation of a business middle class, both by Germany on its own and by the EU.
                        Obviously a school might be less impressive than a wall and obviously that is a long-term project. But it is the far more sensible and sustainable approach. If you dont want people to come make sure they want to stay where they are.
                        And immigration ? Germanys main source of immigration is non-muslim eastern and southern Europe and has been for decades ( recruitement of turkish workers ended in the early 70s). Outer-EU immigrants have to fulfill so many conditions ( most of all skills in demand, job and/or sufficient means to support themselves, since for the first four/five years they will not be eligible for benefits) that most unruly elements of whatever denomination will be shut out anyway. Muslim immigration as a separate issue is not part of the public discourse for the simple reason that it does not take place as a separate issue. Citizens of muslim or majority muslim countries can like all others apply for work visa, student visa or residency visa, and they may or may not get it. But if they get it than the system is clearly geared towards acculturation on a level that the US, the UK or France have never even considered. The anti-Immigrant/anti-Islam vote is rather clearly documentable by the share of votes going to the AFD ( that have recently called for "deposing" the turkish/german minister in Merkels cabinet, Aydan zoguz, "in Anatolia" and that are currently polling around 10 %). But if you replace immigrants with refugees than the numbers mentioned in the poll make more sense. But also then it is not as simple as pro/anti Islam.
                        Polls are showing you a surface. To draw the proper conclusions you inevitably have to understand some backround. If you dont or if you are not interested than you are just throwing meaningless numbers around.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                          Refugees are certainly part of the picture, but not all of it. France was having big problems with Muslim immigrants well before 2015. Remember all those riots? .

                          That countless times refuted crap again ? Seriously ? Reasons that led to the Banlieu riots of 2005 were frustration over economic conditions and lack of perspectives, appaling housing conditions in the "cites", feelings of discrimination (wether justified or not is not the point), police brutality, bad political leadership (Sarkozys comments inflamed more anger instead of calming the situation) and administrative incompetence, plenty of criminal assholes, muslims and non-muslims crawling out of their holes, and well-intended, but counterproductive policies of the past ( such as the construction of the "cites", in the 70s considered a state of the art achievement in urban planning for social housing, today considered one of the major reasons for ghettoization).
                          Religion was conspiciously absent and Frances muslim communities have without exception condemned the incidents, even issued fatwas. That this was to no avail is rather telling.
                          The riots were in the Banlieues and stayed in the Banlieues ( whose population is as diverse as the reasons for poverty, muslim and non-muslim, french and immigrant) and most middle class French saw them nowhere else but on TV. Just as most Americans would circumvent certain parts of their cities.
                          It is true that many perpetrators came from muslim backrounds, but so did many of their victims. Yet there has never been any religious, not even a political agenda. These were largely slum kids without hope for a good future or a good job that suddenly recieved media attention ( and then torched a few more cars for the cameras). Many of them had already had their own issues with the law, and they werent listening to anyone, parents, teachers, social workers, police, politicians---or imams. There is not a single piece of evidence linking french muslims as a group to the Banlieu riots. Frances industrial decline that led to the impoverishment of working class quarters and that affected many immigrant working class families AS WELL as french without the state finding a recipe against the problem ? Much rather....


                          https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u...ots-in-France/

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Been there, done that, and mostly failed. It was called "Empire Building". Overwhelming military strength failed in Vietnam, since the developed power (the USA in this case) downplayed the importance of domestic political and economic leadership. South Vietnam's leadership was so blindly corrupt and rigid, that it made certain we would fail to defeat a determined communist rebellion.

                            Suppose we follow a policy of "polishing diamonds", or constantly choosing leaders that are slightly less corrupt than the last ones, while constantly removing worse leaders. In that case, a military campaign has a reasonable end objective. Otherwise, we're backing losers in-country, with the longer term result (unintended) of defeating our own objectives.
                            I don't want to get into a discussion on Vietnam here. Lets just say it was a very, very different situation than we see now in Syria.

                            Remember Resposibility to Protect (R2P)? This was a commitment signed by all member states of the UN in 2005. All of the horrors it was supposed to prevent have been happening in Syria for years - genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The UN itself is paralyzed by Russia being on the Security Council - they should be removed. But there is nothing stopping other countries who made that commitment, and who profess to care about all those millions of Syrian refugees, from jointly taking action to end the fighting in Syria and providing security for as long as it takes to get a legitimate and secure regime in place.

                            Its either that or we need to stop the moral posturing about how much we care about the plight of the refugees. They want to be able to go home and we have the ability to make that possible. If we don't want to do that we need to STFU. Inviting them to come to our countries isn't what most of them want, and its not what most of the citizens of western countries want either.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Voland View Post



                              Yes, we know you found that poll. Yet you obviously dont know how to read polls. First of all, Chatham House does not disclose how respondents were picked,and that is a grave methodical issue. Secondly, it does not disclose wether and how the questions were translated ( questions can be easily made more "suggestive" by changing an adjective here or there f.e., which is something that anyone who ever did a poll him/herself can confirm to you. And yes, meanings can be lost or changed in translation). And if they were only asking people with english skills that completely distorts the result and would clearly not be representative.
                              Then, Europe is not a country, it is a continent with a collection of countries, an "average" across countries mixing different population sizes, different stages of economic development and prosperity, and thus different attitudes towards immigration is statistically rather meaningless. And as far as the countries themselves are concerned : How f.e. did the guys in charge rule out overlaps into anti-immigration sentiment in general ( which again can have more reasons than just xenophobia) ? Like in Poland, that is a country with barely any immigration, but millions of its own people living abroad as immigrants ( because they dont find adequate jobs at home) ? Of course they would vote "no". Or Hungary. Or Greece, whose young and ambitious ones are fleeing abroad themselves to escape unemployment at home ? Of course they would be against any suggestion of immigration from anywhere. Not to mention that they have a bunch of unresolved questions with their big muslim neighbor Turkey. The poll asking narrow questions while disregarding the diverse context of the countries polled makes it worthless, Im afraid.
                              For Germans, immigration is barely in the top 10 of concerns ( behind automatization of the workplace, the environment, old age poverty , or extremism ( that includes the islamic brand, as well as far left and far right violence). The closest I can reconsile the Chatham poll with the german ones that I am aware of is that the makers were confusing refugees and immigrants in translation ( which are not the same thing for Germans). Yes, noone wants a rerun of the events of autumn 2015, and easily more than 55 %. Which for some might be an anti-Islam statement, others will be rather thinking about logistical nightmares, sports and concert halls turned into emergency accomodation, trains packed with refugees heading everywhere in the country, schools hastily setting up language classes for around 350 000 children etc. The vast majority ( 80/85 %) support a "positive perspective" in the country for those matching conditions for residency (!), yet given a choice by far most support the governement taking steps to avoid a repetition of the big refugee wave of two years ago. Such as drawing up lists of "safe countries", that may suffer from multiple problems, but whose citizens will be rejected when applying for asylum. such as increasing deportations of those without valid status, such as strengthening the EUs external borders ( that IS currently happening between Italy and Libya), such as the Turkey deal ( the EU pays Turkey for handling by far most refugees from Syria and Iraq while taking a flexible monthly quota of vulnerable people, orphans, widows, religious minorities etc. or such as supporting the countries of origin of so-called "economic migrants" in efforts at good governance and job creation. Germany finances and sets up vocational training schemes/schools for skilled workers, based on its own very sucessful model in countries such as Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo, Ukraine, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, to give local youth a perspective at home, instead of trying their luck in the EU ( and often ending up in illegality and criminal structures). There are also plenty of programs to train local police, public services and administration to make them fit for purpose, and to support the creation of a business middle class, both by Germany on its own and by the EU.
                              Obviously a school might be less impressive than a wall and obviously that is a long-term project. But it is the far more sensible and sustainable approach. If you dont want people to come make sure they want to stay where they are.
                              And immigration ? Germanys main source of immigration is non-muslim eastern and southern Europe and has been for decades ( recruitement of turkish workers ended in the early 70s). Outer-EU immigrants have to fulfill so many conditions ( most of all skills in demand, job and/or sufficient means to support themselves, since for the first four/five years they will not be eligible for benefits) that most unruly elements of whatever denomination will be shut out anyway. Muslim immigration as a separate issue is not part of the public discourse for the simple reason that it does not take place as a separate issue. Citizens of muslim or majority muslim countries can like all others apply for work visa, student visa or residency visa, and they may or may not get it. But if they get it than the system is clearly geared towards acculturation on a level that the US, the UK or France have never even considered. The anti-Immigrant/anti-Islam vote is rather clearly documentable by the share of votes going to the AFD ( that have recently called for "deposing" the turkish/german minister in Merkels cabinet, Aydan zoguz, "in Anatolia" and that are currently polling around 10 %). But if you replace immigrants with refugees than the numbers mentioned in the poll make more sense. But also then it is not as simple as pro/anti Islam.
                              Polls are showing you a surface. To draw the proper conclusions you inevitably have to understand some backround. If you dont or if you are not interested than you are just throwing meaningless numbers around.
                              This was a very easy poll to read. No questions, just a simple statement and three possible responses. I find it hard to believe that the people of Germany and France responded the way they did because they misunderstood the statement or didn't understand the meaning of agree or disagree.
                              I agree the method of selecting respondents is key, and Chatham House should have included that information.

                              Just came across this poll. It contradicts what you said about Germans not being concerned about immigration.

                              Instead, the poll found domestic and security issues taking center stage in Germany (see graphic below). About half of Germans listed terrorism and immigration among their top concerns. In that, they were largely aligned with Britain and France. Where they differed: 45 percent listed wealth inequality as a major priority and about a third also listed climate change among their key worries, ranking these problems far higher than Brits or Frenchmen did.

                              https://global.handelsblatt.com/poli...brain-retfeb17
                              Last edited by Brexx; 09-19-2017, 03:15 PM.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                                I don't want to get into a discussion on Vietnam here. Lets just say it was a very, very different situation than we see now in Syria.

                                Remember Resposibility to Protect (R2P)? This was a commitment signed by all member states of the UN in 2005. All of the horrors it was supposed to prevent have been happening in Syria for years - genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The UN itself is paralyzed by Russia being on the Security Council - they should be removed. But there is nothing stopping other countries who made that commitment, and who profess to care about all those millions of Syrian refugees, from jointly taking action to end the fighting in Syria and providing security for as long as it takes to get a legitimate and secure regime in place.

                                Its either that or we need to stop the moral posturing about how much we care about the plight of the refugees. They want to be able to go home and we have the ability to make that possible. If we don't want to do that we need to STFU. Inviting them to come to our countries isn't what most of them want, and its not what most of the citizens of western countries want either.
                                How is this much different than Vietnam? A greater variety of factions? That is true. Corrupt leadership vs. a determined enemy? Too similar. And you would send in the cavalry to clean up the mess? Same as Vietnam, and you would get the same results.

                                One might suggest a "safe zone" that can be isolated geographically from the rest of Syria, without US/NATO troops racing border to border chasing down bad guys. Then you might have a place to start. A constant "rope-a-dope" strategy -encourage attacks against the perimeter of the safe zone, in order to whittle down extremist, irregular combatants along with Assad allies who would try to remove the safe zone. Occasional forays into extremist territory, to take out leadership when targeting is dependable. All of this while putting serious pressure on Arab League states not closely associated with the various sides; if they don't provide at least guard troops to help protect people who would otherwise be refugees, this plan wouldn't work. The reward for those few Arab states that pony up resources (most importantly, troops), is a better position with the US and the EU; if Saudi Arabia or other states fail to come forward, they lose a few points.

                                See how that strategy is better than the Vietnam (aka "old empire") strategy? It limits our involvement, our geographical exposure, without compromising a military defense. It provides a political objective, while preserving the end-game autonomy of Syria. Assad might prevail, his authoritarian state is re-established, but the refugees are "on site" for immediate repatriation. That Syria will have some obligation (gratitude at least) for the Arab League states that stepped up, which should provide some pressure on all parties to change the Old Order. The US and EU can leave Syria without having to re-build the military or political organizations within. In short, we could leave without much more expense than the safe zone strategy, with little to no "colonial" aftertaste. It's elegant, it might work (certainly would work better than the old-fashioned method).

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X