Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

GTA_stu

The Migration Crisis

Recommended Posts

Svip

In 2014, an estimated 280,000 immigrants entered Europe irregularly. That's compared to an estimated EU population of 506 million. And Turks, which are the most prominent non-European ethnicity living in the EU, only amounts to 9 million. These immigrants really need to get moving to outnumber ethnic Europeans.

 

And for those worried about Muslims taking over Europe; currently 2% of people living in Europe identify themselves as Muslim. 7% identify themselves as Atheist. Over 70% of Europeans identify themselves as Christians and 16% consider themselves non-believers.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

I think you massively overstate the amount of threat posed by foreign nationals escaping from Africa to Europe, and massively overestimate the amount of getting which actually takes place.

It's very silly to play games with this stuff. I would implore you to ask pretty much any western security official what they thought about this and i can guarantee you they'd state what I'm telling you. There is no reason why authorities should not extensively vet people who want to come in who are coming in from problem areas. If you have somebody coming in from Algeria or Tunisia who recently spent a year in Syria, then you better take a look at that person. There are plenty of other examples of the same necessity. We're not talking about Cubans or Haitians coming to the U.S., this is people from zones where radicalism is very present coming in to western countries. They simply need to be carefully looked at. It can and should be done if Europe wants to take in these 200,000+ refugees. Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's very silly to play games with this stuff.

I'd far rather focus on the actual big issue, domestic extremism in all its forms.

 

I would implore you to ask pretty much any western security official what they thought about this and i can guarantee you they'd state what I'm telling you.

One; no they wouldn't as many of them happen to think the threat of importing overseas extremism via the asylum system is infinitesimally small compared to the risk presented by homegrown extremists radicalised in the bedroom via forums and social media.

 

Two; the interests of many people in the security community simply boil down to maintaining the status quo and therefore their own position. Targeting this issue as if it's a clear and present threat is a quick win, far easier than addressing the big issues in counter-radicalisation. But the simple fact of the matter is that the threat is very small. The idea of Islamists moving via illegal immigration and/or the asylum system to the West to sow violence is a nice scare story but doesn't really have any basis in reality. It may happen in isolated cases but it's hardly a demonstrable trend.

 

If you have somebody coming in from Algeria or Tunisia who recently spent a year in Syria, then you better take a look at that person.

And how are you going to find that out? You make it sound easy but one of the defining characteristics of the Syrian conflict has been the incredibly porous nature of the movement of fighters into and out of neighbouring countries. The Turks have been notoriously bad at actually tracking foreign Jihadists that they haven't been previously tipped off to, the Algerian and Moroccan security services aren't any better unless you're a known or suspected threat and even then the focus is predominantly on dissuading political opposition rather than addressing Islamic extremism. These people don't exactly come with passports and itineraries, border staff are poorly paid and overworked, and they lack any real grounding in active investigation other than in narrow box-ticking/form-filling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 

I'd far rather focus on the actual big issue, domestic extremism in all its forms.

And what you're failing to recognize is that it is exactly the same issue. Domestic extremists that are radicalized in their bedroom are the same people who are going to Syria/Iraq for training from the Islamic State and who are returning. Read the news... you hear about people being arrested trying to go to these countries what? 3 times a week now? Talk to a security official, I know US ones will tell you they've tried to get back in through Turkey more than once. If you open up an unchecked route through North Africa wherein refugees can just waltz into Europe without any kind of questioning or check into their background, you've set up disaster.

 

 

 

One; no they wouldn't as many of them happen to think the threat of importing overseas extremism via the asylum system is infinitesimally small compared to the risk presented by homegrown extremists radicalised in the bedroom via forums and social media.

See above.

 

 

Two; the interests of many people in the security community simply boil down to maintaining the status quo and therefore their own position. Targeting this issue as if it's a clear and present threat is a quick win, far easier than addressing the big issues in counter-radicalisation. But the simple fact of the matter is that the threat is very small. The idea of Islamists moving via illegal immigration and/or the asylum system to the West to sow violence is a nice scare story but doesn't really have any basis in reality. It may happen in isolated cases but it's hardly a demonstrable trend.

We don't know if it's a demonstrable trend because this whole thing just started. We have never seen anything like ISIS. Yes, they come from AQI and other Sunni groups in Iraq and Syria but they are nothing like al-Qaeda in terms of strategy. This is a group that is creating and actively taking territory, with significant numbers, and as you mention yourself a very seductive recruitment method radicalizing Westerners in their own homes. Combine that with a refugee crisis that is allowing people to gain easy, unchecked entry in Europe. Come on? Are you seriously arguing that those routes won't be taken advantage of? When was the last time in recent history we've had Islamic extremists in great swathes like ISIS (AQ was much smaller as you know and operated differently) trying to attack the West to further their strategic goals, combined with a refugee crisis allowing entry? Hint: we haven't.

 

 

 

And how are you going to find that out? You make it sound easy but one of the defining characteristics of the Syrian conflict has been the incredibly porous nature of the movement of fighters into and out of neighbouring countries. The Turks have been notoriously bad at actually tracking foreign Jihadists that they haven't been previously tipped off to, the Algerian and Moroccan security services aren't any better unless you're a known or suspected threat and even then the focus is predominantly on dissuading political opposition rather than addressing Islamic extremism. These people don't exactly come with passports and itineraries, border staff are poorly paid and overworked, and they lack any real grounding in active investigation other than in narrow box-ticking/form-filling.

I'm talking not about Algerian, Tunisian, or Moroccan security but rather European security that needs to step up and check these people. It can be done. Talk to people who know immigration enforcement. You can investigate where people came from. You can call the Jordanian security services and see if the guy you have infront of you who is acting highly suspicious and whose story doesn't make sense if he's on one of their watchlists or has been through there. You can do the same with the Moroccans or the Tunisias, Egyptians, etc. It can and, frankly, will be done. If they have to lock these people down for 3 months while they sort through it, they are going to do it. The Spanish and French for sure. The Italians might just turn them back, but they all have the resources and the ability.

 

 

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

By the same criteria each Italian travelling around the globe should be kept 3 months in custody to make sure he's not a mafioso, especially if he comes from Sicily, Campania, Calabria or Puglia.

 

The same absurd criteria could be applied to any nationality. You just need to find a pretext as vague as the possibility of being an Islamic terrorist just because you come from Morocco or Tunisia.

 

I'm not saying people shouldn't be routinely checked at borders or if they come through the sea, but they shouldn't be checked more than they would be checked if they were tourists simply landed in an airport.

 

The complete disparity of rights when it comes to travel or to migrate is the real shame of all of this.

 

We can't institutionalise the fact that we have more global rights than others and then act like we are the light of progress on the planet when in reality we are the first obstacle to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

I'm not saying people shouldn't be routinely checked at borders or if they come through the sea, but they shouldn't be checked more than they would be checked if they were tourists simply landed in an airport.

 

Ignoring the nonsense you said above relating this to mafiosos, this is exactly what I've been saying. The point is these people coming from North Africa don't have the same documentation nor the same legitimate travel reasons as you or I would flying into Spain or taking a cruise ship. Thus, the authorities need to (and I'm convinced will) take these steps I listed above. It's really not asking too much Doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

It's not really nonsense. Mafiosi nowadays enjoy a large freedom of movement exactly cause they can forge any type of document and move to live and operate everywhere in Europe or in the planet. They are a far more serious threat to society than a lonely terrorist descended from a boat could ever be. The nonsense in in the double standards.

 

Also it doesn't seem to me that migrants are allowed in Europe without any sort of border control. The ones that arrive in Sicily are already held for months in places that are more or less 21st century prisoners camps.

 

As for the legitimate travel reasons I don't see why a young African migrant's reasons should be any different from mine.

I moved to Portugal in 1997 looking for a job and an independent life. I was 24 years old, I was unemployed and I had money sufficient for no more than a month.

Yes, I quickly got a job cause I was qualified and the country was facing an economic boom.

Yes, my country wasn't at war so if things went bad I could have come back home to my middle class parents' home in Rome.

Yes, I was allowed to do so without any control whatsoever on my personal life, country of origin, documents.

But why am I allowed to do so and others are not? If you look at the core of this there isn't really a legitimate reason why I'm allowed to do so rather than the application of a political and social double standard.

I was allowed to do so cause I'm a white European. A person that could migrate without escaping from a war, without risking his life in the process, without having to be kept for months anywhere.

And I could have been a lunatic and planted a bomb in Lisbon. Who knows... Nobody ever checked my background history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

And what you're failing to recognize is that it is exactly the same issue...If you open up an unchecked route through North Africa wherein refugees can just waltz into Europe without any kind of questioning or check into their background, you've set up disaster.

Sorry, but this is a non-sequitur. People emigrating through the North African route are generally sub-Saharan or North African; the likelihhod of them having been in Syria is excruciatingly small. Additionally, it begs the question why a jihadi would use such a convoluted process to gain access to Europe; as far as I'm aware there's never been an instance of terrorism in the West reported on which was actioned by an asylum seeker or recent asylum émigrée. I think you're massively overstating the practical risks of such events.

 

Come on? Are you seriously arguing that those routes won't be taken advantage of?

No, I'm arguing that the demographics of the ongoing crisis don't correlate with the idea this is actually taking place. It's all very well to assume a hypothetical worst case but the simple fact of the matter is that there's no evidence it's actually taking place. Which isn't to say this hypothetical scenario is impossible (though I'd argue it's fairly implausible), but policy cannot reasonably be dictated by chicken-littling.

 

When was the last time in recent history we've had Islamic extremists in great swathes like ISIS...trying to attack the West

We aren't seeing a great deal of aggression from ISIS towards the West. Their currently very focused on maintaining their own territorial integrity; again, that's subject to change but currently that's what we're seeing. It's also worth noting there has historically been a great deal of immigration from supposed Islamic "radicals" to Europe, primarily during the 1970s and 1980s, with the net result of...well, not very much.

 

I'm talking not about Algerian, Tunisian, or Moroccan security but rather European security

Who are largely reliant on information provided by overseas security services, as your example highlighted.

 

It can be done. Talk to people who know immigration enforcement.

It can be done, yes, but not by the kind of people we tend to employ in border control roles. I can't speak for US border control which might well be very professional and well resources but border control in Europe is usually done by the lowest common denominator. I've worked with both private and public organisations involved in border control and have absolutely no faith in their ability to properly investigate the origins and stories of immigrants. Hence why most if them end up in what are effectively concentration camps for months at a time. We could do it, theoretically, but not with our current staff or organisations. And whether it's actually necessary in most of these cases...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

By the same criteria each Italian travelling around the globe should be kept 3 months in custody to make sure he's not a mafioso, especially if he comes from Sicily, Campania, Calabria or Puglia.

 

Doc, this is not about keeping all Muslim nationals 3 months, but to keep Islamic radicals and people the authorities suspect have been involved in terrorism and crimes against humanity.

 

Your comparison is pointless and makes no sense at all.

 

I'm not saying people shouldn't be routinely checked at borders or if they come through the sea, but they shouldn't be checked more than they would be checked if they were tourists simply landed in an airport.

 

You're checked based on the threat you might pose and the documents you hold. This is 100% normal.

 

There's nothing wrong with checking other people more than tourists.

 

We can't institutionalise the fact that we have more global rights than others and then act like we are the light of progress on the planet when in reality we are the first obstacle to it.

 

First of all, could you please define "we"?

 

The West is progress in every camp. This can't be denied.

 

Could you please explain your post? Are you blaming the West for the bad situation of the rest of the world? Do you mean that if the West didn't exist, and therefore its policies would not take place, the world would be great?

Edited by Palikari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Well well well, shoe on the other foot, chickens coming home, and all that. Long and short of it, Europe you are f*cked. Wake up and get with the program, or continue to do what you're doing here and point fingers and cast blame. Give it a 50/50 chance that we help you out of this one. My personal opinion is no, but we all know what happened the LAST time europeans handled their own problems.

 

 

Was talking with one of the helicopter guys that flew out refugees at the fall of Saigon the other day. This is all predictable and has happened before. North Vietnam sent thousands and thousands of refugees ahead of their forces in the war. The main affect was to tie down our forces (well South Vietnam) and clog the roadways to prevent reinforcements from reaching the front lines. This also happened in the invasion of France in WW2, and one more conflict, but I can't recall at the moment.

 

Sick twisted people do this, and we're fighting some of the sickest people right now. They want to tie your naval forces down, helping the refugee problem. They want to drain your treasury (well what's left) by undertaking these operations, and also footing the bill on the social services side. This is a strategy to defeat you. Right now, you're falling into that trap.

 

So two options: One, continue to bicker and complain. Or two, get your act together like (and I can't believe I'm saying this) France is. Do we need more people killed in a deli or newspaper rooms before you all get the picture? I hope not, but I'm not too optimistic either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

The EU does not allow my country to protect it's borders by any means necessary. http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/31/inenglish/1414750844_552185.html

 

And even more, the EU threatens Spain with economic sanctions if the use of violence is used by the authorities but, the have no comment when thinks like this happen:

 

 

 

 

 

Well i have a better solution for all of you users from other countries in Europe that side with illegal inmigrants. Since we Spaniards are fed up of the immigrants that live and parasite in our not perfect but nice little state of ours (http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20110211/54112738300/crece-en-espana-el-rechazo-a-los-extranjeros.html)

 

We have decided to open the gates In Ceuta and Melilla 24/7 so immigrants from all over Africa can cross without having their passport checked. Once they arrive in Spain, they will put in a bus (Paid for our government) and they will travel to Brussels, Paris, London, Marseille, Manchester, Amsterdam, Berlin, Stockholm, Malmö, Oslo, Helsinki and Vienna for free.

 

And we will do this for the time we please.

 

Wanna bet than in less than 24 hours, Brussels calls and asks us too close our gates again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 


But why am I allowed to do so and others are not? If you look at the core of this there isn't really a legitimate reason why I'm allowed to do so rather than the application of a political and social double standard.
I was allowed to do so cause I'm a white European. A person that could migrate without escaping from a war, without risking his life in the process, without having to be kept for months anywhere.
And I could have been a lunatic and planted a bomb in Lisbon. Who knows... Nobody ever checked my background history.

 

I understand what you're saying but it comes to risk-assessment at the end of the day. You can't screen everybody to a significant extent, but you can screen those who come from problem areas to a significant extent who pose a greater risk than you, a guy leaving Italy for Portugal. It really doesn't have much to do with what color you are, either. There are plenty of people who aren't "dark" in Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Libya.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but this is a non-sequitur. People emigrating through the North African route are generally sub-Saharan or North African; the likelihhod of them having been in Syria is excruciatingly small. Additionally, it begs the question why a jihadi would use such a convoluted process to gain access to Europe; as far as I'm aware there's never been an instance of terrorism in the West reported on which was actioned by an asylum seeker or recent asylum émigrée. I think you're massively overstating the practical risks of such events.

It's not a convoluted process though. What this is essentially doing is opening up an easy route for radicalized people to go into Europe through. I don't know how we can dance around that fact. I understand your argument from a utilitarian perspective; that perhaps the number is so small it isn't worth worrying about, but I don't agree with that. The fact of the matter is we have Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco and to an extent Libya serving as a point of emigration for these refugees. These countries, as you know, especially Tunisia and Algeria, have significant Islamist populations. If we review the numbers of estimated foreign fighter sources, you have Tunisia, a comparatively small state, exporting close to 5,000 fighters. That isn't something to play around and take chances with. There's no feasible reason I can think of, other than your argument that it "may not happen", to not take this seriously and conduct advanced screening on refugees coming in from North Africa who fit a particular profile. And as I said above, it's not only the potential that they have been to Syria or Iraq. You made it clear yourself; these people get radicalized in their bedrooms. What's to stop radicals from Tunis to get on the refugee line with legit refugees and say they don't have papers and just get let in? Nothing, if we do what you're suggesting and just let these people pour in.


 


 

 

We aren't seeing a great deal of aggression from ISIS towards the West. Their currently very focused on maintaining their own territorial integrity; again, that's subject to change but currently that's what we're seeing. It's also worth noting there has historically been a great deal of immigration from supposed Islamic "radicals" to Europe, primarily during the 1970s and 1980s, with the net result of...well, not very much.

Right but as I mentioned above, in the 70s and 80s we did not have the same situation going on. And especially now when ISIS is being slowly beat back (at least in Iraq, in Syria they're doing OK), there's a good chance that they're going to pursue more aggressive policies to the West in order to remove Western politicla support in favor of going after them.


 


Who are largely reliant on information provided by overseas security services, as your example highlighted.

And their own security that are in these countries, the CIA, which cooperates with European security forces, the notion that they just have no information and that the overseas services are going to not provide any assistance is silly.

 


It can be done, yes, but not by the kind of people we tend to employ in border control roles. I can't speak for US border control which might well be very professional and well resources but border control in Europe is usually done by the lowest common denominator. I've worked with both private and public organisations involved in border control and have absolutely no faith in their ability to properly investigate the origins and stories of immigrants. Hence why most if them end up in what are effectively concentration camps for months at a time. We could do it, theoretically, but not with our current staff or organisations. And whether it's actually necessary in most of these cases...

I know people who do border control too, but that isn't who would be doing this. Border control itself may not be even college educated, but in the US for example we have CBP which under it is the uniformed Border Patrol. Then you've got HSI, which falls under ICE and are skilled investigators who investigate threats stemming from the nation's borders. I know many of these guys and they aren't idiots and lowest common denominator people... I don't know the intricacies of European agencies like I do the US, but I can almost be sure that there are investigators who do the same thing, whether they're from the counterterrorism agencies or domestic security. This isn't something that would be investigated by the guy that stamps your passport.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

The EU does not allow my country to protect it's borders by any means necessary. http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/31/inenglish/1414750844_552185.html

 

Of course not. The EU also doesn't allow you to punish your citizens by any means necessary. To be a member of the EU you have to abolish capital punishment, for instance. So yeah, there are plenty of rules that EU members have to follow. That's sort of part of the deal.

 

More to the point, in this instance, the EU has at best expressed concerned over Ceuta and Mililla. There has so far been no active opposition or sanctions coming Spain's way, only talk thereof. Besides Malmström is no longer the commissioner in question for this area. The letter is from October and I don't recall any more action taken on the subject, both on Spain's behalf and the EU's behalf.

 

I definitely think you are overreacting. Also, I find your 'plan' incredibly unlikely to happen. The EU is definitely not suggesting you open the gates, but some in the commission were apparently concerned over the way some immigrants were treated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

This is all predictable and has happened before. North Vietnam sent thousands and thousands of refugees ahead of their forces in the war. The main affect was to tie down our forces (well South Vietnam) and clog the roadways to prevent reinforcements from reaching the front lines.

Sorry but this is a hilarious piece of historical revisionism. The notion that the North Vietnamese used civilian refugees as an area-denial weapon simply does not correlate with reality. I appreciate that this is simply the opinion of someone who was there and whose objectivity and even authority on the subject is doubtful, but casting it as if it's demonstrable fact is borderline laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Pali, as usual your point by point reply make no sense cause it wrongly addresses things I meant in a different way.
I guess you didn't fully get what we were talking about.

Obviously if I present myself at a border as an Islamic radical or as a mobster I will be checked and kept for 3 months or expelled.
Beside the fact nobody does such stupid thing when did I say the opposite?

I simply said regular people who not present any reason to be suspected should be checked no more than any other traveling citizen on the planet.

Country of origin should never be a criteria to limit freedom of travel and freedom of movement which are universal basic human rights.

This ain't happening at the moment and regular people, student, workers, teachers, women and children are kept for months in camps for no other reason but their country of origin.

 

My post was quite clear but I'll explain it again for you.

"We", the western world, cannot claim to be the holders of truth, democracy, progress and universal rights if we apply universal rights only to ourselves and deny them to the rest.

The rest of your questions have absolutely nothing to do with the above statement.

 

 

@ Irviding: risk-assessment is fine for me but it has to be applied reasonably and not schizophrenically. Right now I see a lot of demagogy about immigration and little concern about what the real threats are to our society. Coming from Italy I know the biggest threat to my country and to our society, a threat that has became silently global, is organized crime. The damage it has caused, it is causing and it will cause is far bigger than any threat immigration could ever pose and yet we fear the poor African man coming to our shores seeking for a piece of bread and a roof.

 

I suggest you get familiar with the work of Roberto Saviano if you haven't yet.

The writer that lives permanently under escort cause organized crime wants to kill him.

It was eye opening for me and it made me realize how global organized crime is more powerful than it ever was on a planetary scale.

Organized crime is without a doubt a bigger threat than immigration and a bigger threat than IS.

 

So, to get back to my point, between 100.000 Africans trying to reach Europe and 100.000 Italians freely traveling on the planet, where we'd find the larger amount of dangerous people?

I have no doubts about the answer.

 

The "immigration problem" is merely a tool to distract people from the real issues society faces. Putting poor vs poor is the oldest trick in the book of politicians.

The "immigration problem" could be easily solved if the political will was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

 


@ Irviding: risk-assessment is fine for me but it has to be applied reasonably and not schizophrenically. Right now I see a lot of demagogy about immigration and little concern about what the real threats are to our society. Coming from Italy I know the biggest threat to my country and to our society, a threat that has became silently global, is organized crime. The damage it has caused, it is causing and it will cause is far bigger than any threat immigration could ever pose and yet we fear the poor African man coming to our shores seeking for a piece of bread and a roof.

I'm not worried about the poor African man either, I'm worried about dangerous actors taking advantage of a very loose policy. I hear you; that specifically in Italy you've got a huge organized crime problem. I've read the articles about Berlusconi's connections to various crime cartels and all of that stuff.. I'm talking more of a broad, European issue than I am specifically about Italy, but I totally hear your point - you've got problems people ignore, and instead they focus on the dangerous Muslims when nobody talks about organized crime.

 

 

 

I suggest you get familiar with the work of Roberto Saviano if you haven't yet.

The writer that lives permanently under escort cause organized crime wants to kill him.

It was eye opening for me and it made me realize how global organized crime is more powerful than it ever was on a planetary scale.

Organized crime is without a doubt a bigger threat than immigration and a bigger threat than IS.

I would disagree about it being a bigger threat; because IS itself has so many geopolitical calculations that could be set off throwing the world into turmoil that would dwarf organized crime, but sure as I said above I hear your point.

 

 

 

So, to get back to my point, between 100.000 Africans trying to reach Europe and 100.000 Italians freely traveling on the planet, where we'd find the larger amount of dangerous people?

I have no doubts about the answer.

 

The "immigration problem" is merely a tool to distract people from the real issues society faces. Putting poor vs poor is the oldest trick in the book of politicians.

The "immigration problem" could be easily solved if the political will was there.

I agree with everything you've said... again though, it doesn't really discount my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Thing is, the threat posed by IS and Islamic extremism to the West is still very much hypothetical. I can't really disagree with the notion that things could happen, but they aren't happening; the real focus is quite rightly on returning domestic citizens from Syria and Iraq and the threat they pose. That's a real, tangible threat because it's happening. Are Islamists infiltrating the West via the asylum system? I don't know, but I've not seem smy evidence to suggest they are.

 

And even if they were, they wouldn't comprise the greatest, most imminent threat to the safety or security of nations (that's reserved for state actors in the "new" realms AKA cyber to laymen) or most citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

Thing is, the threat posed by IS and Islamic extremism to the West is still very much hypothetical. I can't really disagree with the notion that things could happen, but they aren't happening; the real focus is quite rightly on returning domestic citizens from Syria and Iraq and the threat they pose. That's a real, tangible threat because it's happening. Are Islamists infiltrating the West via the asylum system? I don't know, but I've not seem smy evidence to suggest they are.

 

And even if they were, they wouldn't comprise the greatest, most imminent threat to the safety or security of nations (that's reserved for state actors in the "new" realms AKA cyber to laymen) or most citizens.

 

 

Article from this month:

 

http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/04/08/inenglish/1428484498_088301.html

 

 

You can read in the article things that prove "how right you are".

 

the police investigation discovered evidence that a new group of terrorists was not only trying to send more youths to Syria, but also planning an attack on Spanish soil.

 

 

 

Catalonia is one of the Spanish regions that has seen the most police operations against jihadism. So far this year, 29 arrests have been made, without counting today’s detentions.

 

 

 

Besides recruiting new combatants for Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq, the group constituted “an operative cell that was intending to carry out attacks in Catalonia,” said the Catalan chief of internal affairs,

 

 

 

Buy hey!

 

As you can see This is NOT a problem. My regional government likes to deploy Mossos d'Escuadra on big public areas of Barcelona armed with SMG and bullet proof vest just because we feel like it and because we like to show off.

 

eddiemurphyyesnodapprov.gif

 

 

 

P.D. I made sure i got an article from a NewsPaper that's left wing.

Edited by SouthLand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

This is old news but while some foreigners plan stuff without actually doing anything other foreigners have been operative in Spanish soil for decades infiltrating all levels of society and making a lot of dirty money out of it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140708/police-raid-italian-mafia-accross-spain

 

The Camorra considers Spain a sort of colony for their business operations and while there are raids from time to time the control over the Spanish territory is well established and continuous.

Why is that I don't sense the same panic displayed for a still hypothetical threat for an actual existing one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You've totally missed my point Southland, so next time you decide to lace your post with facetious posturing at least endeavour to respond to what I've actually said

 

Radical Islsmism has been part of Western society since about the 1970s. It's been a clear and present security risk since the mid 80s and was, and arguably is, the primary physical risk to security. But it's not going to bring down Western governments, nor has it so far caused significant damage or disruption to Western society as a whole. Not in the grand context of domestic terrorist movements or separatist movements.

 

Similarly, even in years with successful attacks the direct threat to the security of citizens and the quantifiable impact is far less than other perceived threats like organised criminal activity, natural disasters or general political and social instability.

 

Not to mention the fact I was specifically referring to foreign fighters coming in via the immigration/asylum system rather than the entirely more serious and real threat domestic citizens returning from overseas jihad. Which was pretty abundantly clear from my post.

 

Tl;Dr, nice straw man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

For one sec I wondered whether this topic was about a crisis of Africans dying because of not being able to migrate medicine because of increased medicine prices caused by pharmaceurical intellectual property rights in TTIP. Lol.. Med migration..

In the category of debunking scaremongering:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/

Less than 2 percent of European terrorism is religiously motivated according to Europol.

You are far far more likely to die in a carcrash, or to get hit by a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

This is old news but while some foreigners plan stuff without actually doing anything other foreigners have been operative in Spanish soil for decades infiltrating all levels of society and making a lot of dirty money out of it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140708/police-raid-italian-mafia-accross-spain

 

The Camorra considers Spain a sort of colony for their business operations and while there are raids from time to time the control over the Spanish territory is well established and continuous.

Why is that I don't sense the same panic displayed for a still hypothetical threat for an actual existing one?

 

A guy that knows more about the issue than you do, will answer your question:

 

 

Minute 8:00 to minute 9:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've totally missed my point Southland, so next time you decide to lace your post with facetious posturing at least endeavour to respond to what I've actually said

 

Radical Islsmism has been part of Western society since about the 1970s. It's been a clear and present security risk since the mid 80s and was, and arguably is, the primary physical risk to security. But it's not going to bring down Western governments, nor has it so far caused significant damage or disruption to Western society as a whole. Not in the grand context of domestic terrorist movements or separatist movements.

 

Similarly, even in years with successful attacks the direct threat to the security of citizens and the quantifiable impact is far less than other perceived threats like organised criminal activity, natural disasters or general political and social instability.

 

Not to mention the fact I was specifically referring to foreign fighters coming in via the immigration/asylum system rather than the entirely more serious and real threat domestic citizens returning from overseas jihad. Which was pretty abundantly clear from my post.

 

Tl;Dr, nice straw man.

 

Criminal activity can go from killing a man to, fraud.

 

Let me put it this way;

 

I have a neighbor who owns a small business and he decides to Keep two sets of books. He will probably get arrested sooner or later and be charged. Yes he is a criminal, but my life is not in danger at any moment.

 

If i have immigrant neighbors who have a radical religious point of view, and are armed and ready to blow up themselves if the police raid their house like in Leganes on March 11th, ¿Is my life in danger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So, how many people have been killed by Islamic extremists in Spain in the last 10 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

So, how many people have been killed by Islamic extremists in Spain in the last 10 years?

More than 190 people on the train bombings in Madrid (03/11/2004).

 

Also, tens of terrorists have been arrested in Spain (and other European countries) only in 2015 before they could carry out their terror attacks.

 

What's your point, Sivis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

 

So, how many people have been killed by Islamic extremists in Spain in the last 10 years?

More than 190 people on the train bombings in Madrid (03/11/2004).

 

Also, tens of terrorists have been arrested in Spain (and other European countries) only in 2015 before they could carry out their terror attacks.

 

What's your point, Sivis?

 

 

You forgot about Ceuta and Melilla. A Melting pot of people that get recruited to go to Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

So, how many people have been killed by Islamic extremists in Spain in the last 10 years?

More than 190 people on the train bombings in Madrid (03/11/2004).Maths fail.

You can count to ten, right?

 

What's your point, Sivis?

That the actual threat, rather than the theoretical or worst-case scenario threat, posed by Islamic extremists in Europe is manageable at worst, arguably even negligible.

 

And that the threat posed by Islamic extremists infiltrating Europe via the asylum system is utterly insignificant compared to the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

 

This is old news but while some foreigners plan stuff without actually doing anything other foreigners have been operative in Spanish soil for decades infiltrating all levels of society and making a lot of dirty money out of it.

http://www.thelocal.es/20140708/police-raid-italian-mafia-accross-spain

 

The Camorra considers Spain a sort of colony for their business operations and while there are raids from time to time the control over the Spanish territory is well established and continuous.

Why is that I don't sense the same panic displayed for a still hypothetical threat for an actual existing one?

 

A guy that knows more about the issue than you do, will answer your question:

 

Saviano confirms what I say rather than what you say. The perception of the threat that criminal organisations pose doesn't generate panic due to a usually low profile activity that is often ignored by the media, while the real risks of radical islamism are artificially made bigger than what they really are. The damages to society though are much bigger when it comes to organised criminal activities. Saviano just said in that same interview that Spain is the main door for cocaine in Europe and is considered a safe home by mobsters. Do you even know the kind of social, moral, economical and political damage that such huge traffic causes? And you're worried by people that come in your country looking for an honest job?

 

---

 

Pali, 11M was 11 years ago. Sivi said last 10 years for a reason.

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

You can count to ten, right?

 

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they were killed 10 or 11 years ago. The families still suffering, and the dead still dead.

 

The victims matter no matter when they were killed. There have also been more Islamic terror attacks in Spain before. If you want I can point them out.

 

You forgot about Ceuta and Melilla. A Melting pot of people that get recruited to go to Syria.

 

Actually Ceuta and Melilla are sh*tholes. I mean, not the whole city, they are nice and so on. But they have the worst neighborhoods in Spain (am I wrong?) and they are full of Islamic extremism. No surprise they are a source of terrorists into Syria.

Edited by Palikari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they were killed 10 or 11 years ago.

It does if the question specified "in the last 10 years". If you provide am answer from 11 years ago, you're simply wrong.

 

The victims matter no matter when they were killed.

I agree, and am not saying that they don't. That's nothing more than a straw man argument. My point has been very clearly expressed and I'm loathe to repeat myself yet again; I simply fail to understand why you're incapable of responding to it rather than some imaginary argument I'm not making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irviding

And that the threat posed by Islamic extremists infiltrating Europe via the asylum system is utterly insignificant compared to the above.

Out of everything you've said this is all I take issue with. repeating what I said above, we just don't know that. You can't say that it is an insignificant threat when we are currently in an unprecedented situation with regard to asylum openings from problem area+ a rise of Islamism. You can speculate, but you can't just dismiss it as insigificiant. There's no historical basis for this particular combination we are experiencing now. When speculating in terms of policy discussions like this, we are best served by erring on the side of caution

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
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

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.