PDA

View Full Version : Those naughty boys at the Wail & RT are making it all up again



vetran
13th December 2016, 10:15
Oh Dear

Schengen zone nations MUST border check as terrorists are pretending to be refugees | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4024098/Germany-admits-Schengen-zone-nations-bring-border-check-terrorists-pretending-refugees-moving-freely-continent.html)



Germany admits Schengen zone nations MUST bring back border check because terrorists pretending to be refugees are moving freely across the continent
Documents suggest implementing a 'filter function of Europe's external borders'
German officials reportedly fear terrorists are disguising themselves as refugees
The details emerged from minutes of a meeting of EU ambassadors in Brussels


https://www.rt.com/news/369951-germany-border-checks-extend/


The German government wants to extend border control in the Schengen zone because it has had a tip-off about potential terrorists entering the country disguised as refugees, Germany's Der Spiegel magazine said.
Read more
Germans believe EU is ‘heading in wrong direction’ – survey
The report is based on the minutes of an EU ambassadors’ internal meeting in Brussels obtained by the outlet. In particular, the document mentions a "filter function of the external borders," which it says is not working.



oops Der Spiegel is the source

https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2016/50/148434871/index.html?utm_source=spon&utm_campaign=centerpage


Germany wants to extend controls and calls on terrorism.

The federal government wants to restrict the freedom of travel in Europe for a longer time than planned so far. This is evident from the minutes of an internal meeting of the EU ambassadors in Brussels. EU citizens are free to move freely in the so-called Schengen area. In the wake of the refugee crisis, Germany and other EU countries had begun to stop travelers at the borders, ask for passports and search for isolated vehicles.

vetran
13th December 2016, 10:21
https://www.rt.com/news/368399-german-gauck-eu-interview/

looks like its the stupid people's fault.


German President Joachim Gauck has urged for a “pause” in EU integration to allow all members to discuss “what they want to achieve at what pace,” lest people forget the dangers of populism and why Donald Trump won the US presidency.
The 78-year-old federal president praised the European Union’s ethos in an interview to Welt am Sonntag, calling it a “great concept” and “a peace project that generations of us had not dared to dream.” He argued, however, that an increase in globalization does not work for everyone at the same pace.

While achieving a closer union, Gauck said, “we were sometimes so fast that not all citizens could or would want to come with us. That makes me worry.”
Gauck stressed that such feelings of discontent are what led to Donald Trump’s victory in the United States.

“As a whole, we should think about a pause during which we discuss which goal we want to reach, and at what speed,” he continued, as he urged European politicians to look beyond campaigns centered on universal values like freedom and security, and to focus more on making the population feel collectively at home in the 28-nation bloc.


“Not everyone feels like a world citizen,” he said.

NotAllThere
13th December 2016, 10:59
TL;DR "Intelligence received about ISIS attempting to infiltrate Europe through refugee/asylum seeker channels, results in security being enhanced, including passport checks at some borders."

Seems reasonable.

filthy1980
13th December 2016, 11:01
TL;DR "Intelligence received about ISIS attempting to infiltrate Europe through refugee/asylum seeker channels, results in security being enhanced, including passport checks at some borders."

Seems reasonable.

yes it does

but then why do people freak out when the skittles analogy is made?

vetran
13th December 2016, 11:03
yes it does

but then why do people freak out when the skittles analogy is made?

this one? NSFW

http :// vimeo.com/26753142

filthy1980
13th December 2016, 11:05
[QUOTE=vetran;2344847]this one? NSFW

image blocked but I was referring to Trump Jnr's tweet a couple months ago

vetran
13th December 2016, 11:15
[QUOTE=vetran;2344847]this one? NSFW

image blocked but I was referring to Trump Jnr's tweet a couple months ago

I suppose it got banned from the superbowl, its the skittles ad with the babe & nerd on their wedding night quite funny if a bit rude.

Just looked that up Ouch basically he is right but most of them are nice people. I suppose they do have the experience with the Cubans.

Castro announces Mariel Boatlift - Apr 20, 1980 - HISTORY.com (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/castro-announces-mariel-boatlift)


The boatlift also began to have negative political implications for U.S.President Jimmy Carter.When it was discovered that a number of the exiles had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities, many were placed in refugee camps while others were held in federal prisons to undergo deportation hearings. Of the 125,000 “Marielitos,” as the refugees came to be known, who landed in Florida, more than 1,700 were jailed and another 587 were detained until they could find sponsors.

always thought that was genius.

NotAllThere
13th December 2016, 11:31
yes it does

but then why do people freak out when the skittles analogy is made?Because that was about excluding all refugees from a particular country, on the grounds that a few might be terrorists. The articles are about beefing up cross-border security, on the basis of intelligence that some terrorists might now be actively seeking to exploit people smuggling channels.

filthy1980
13th December 2016, 11:48
Because that was about excluding all refugees from a particular country, on the grounds that a few might be terrorists. The articles are about beefing up cross-border security, on the basis of intelligence that some terrorists might now be actively seeking to exploit people smuggling channels.

that intelligence existed months ago, as I'm sure I read that ISIS in their own literature were encouraging jihadhi's to disguise themselves as refugees to get into Europe and commit jihad

I think both are about increasing security and checks and not just taking a refugees word for it when s/he turns up at your boarder

VectraMan
13th December 2016, 11:53
I don't know why anybody thought that video wouldn't be banned.:laugh

Anti-terrorist police could set up a check point anywhere they want. Special Branch could close the M1 if they had some good reason; it doesn't mean that opening the M1 in the first place was a bad idea.

5 or 6 years ago I drove into Germany from France and the motorway was blocked off with roadworks. I had to drive a service station where the police were stopping every car. A thoroughly miserable looking Polizistin asked me something in German, which I didn't understand and she didn't speak any English, and so she just scowled and waved me on. I've no idea what that was about, but it obviously didn't mean the collapse of Schengen.

VectraMan
13th December 2016, 11:57
that intelligence existed months ago, as I'm sure I read that ISIS in their own literature were encouraging jihadhi's to disguise themselves as refugees to get into Europe and commit jihad

How do they disguise themselves as refugees? Or do you mean don't turn up at the border in a Toyota Hilux wearing camoulflage gear with an AK47?

filthy1980
13th December 2016, 12:04
How do they disguise themselves as refugees? Or do you mean don't turn up at the border in a Toyota Hilux wearing camoulflage gear with an AK47?

I don't know what the criteria for refugee is but if I was a jihadhi, I'd get to the European mainland, mingle in with people that looked like me, then when I bumped into any form of governing authority the only words I'd speak would be "from Syria Assad kill family" then I'd STFU and see where they took me

NotAllThere
13th December 2016, 12:55
that intelligence existed months ago, as I'm sure I read that ISIS in their own literature were encouraging jihadhi's to disguise themselves as refugees to get into Europe and commit jihadThere's a difference between ISIS bigging themselves up and actual credible intelligence of a plan being implemented.

The reason that the skittle analogy is wrong is - well if you really want to know, dig out the thread that was current at the time.


...the only words I'd speak would be "from Syria Assad kill family" then I'd STFU and see where they took meI wonder if the authorities have ever thought of using translators?

filthy1980
13th December 2016, 13:11
I wonder if the authorities have ever thought of using translators?

yes and when does the logistics of bringing in translators, psychologists, Doctors, social workers etc get too burdensome and expensive, for the boarder authority to turn around and just say, "take this card go to X camp and report into us every two weeks"

two weeks go by and said refugee may have vanished

d000hg
13th December 2016, 13:16
yes it does

but then why do people freak out when the skittles analogy is made?Because the correct analogy is you'd have to eat a wheelbarrowful of them to find one bad one. And if you ate that many you'd be dead regardless ;)

vetran
13th December 2016, 16:34
Because the correct analogy is you'd have to eat a wheelbarrowful of them to find one bad one. And if you ate that many you'd be dead regardless ;)

you don't understand risk do you?

d000hg
13th December 2016, 17:13
you don't understand risk do you?

What, the idea that the ratio of poisoned skittles to normal ones is kind of important here? If one in a million bottles of wine was poisonous you'd treat it differently to one in ten.

NotAllThere
13th December 2016, 17:14
you don't understand risk do you?

And, apparently, neither do you. You are more likely to be killed crossing the road than in a terrorist attack. Although, if you live in Allepo, the two might be congruent. :ohwell

shaunbhoy
13th December 2016, 17:16
two weeks go by and said refugee may have exploded

ftfy :wink

vetran
13th December 2016, 17:47
What, the idea that the ratio of poisoned skittles to normal ones is kind of important here? If one in a million bottles of wine was poisonous you'd treat it differently to one in ten.

It only takes one to kill you. The fact YOU believe the risk is unlikely doesn't make it small. If the risk is death then its very real.

vetran
13th December 2016, 17:51
And, apparently, neither do you. You are more likely to be killed crossing the road than in a terrorist attack. Although, if you live in Allepo, the two might be congruent. :ohwell

I can avoid being killed crossing the road by being careful, The government can avoid a terrorist attack by being careful.

The bit you both are missing is just because the likelihood is low doesn't mean its a risk I wish to take.

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 18:25
And, apparently, neither do you. You are more likely to be killed crossing the road than in a terrorist attack. Although, if you live in Allepo, the two might be congruent. :ohwell


I must be special then, I was walking on the Brighton Pier just prior to the IRA bomb been found.
I have been hit by a car, as he drove through a red light, luckily I jumped backwards to avoid being flattened completely.

I've never lived in Allepo :laugh

cvinbin
13th December 2016, 18:38
I must be special then, I was walking on the Brighton Pier just prior to the IRA bomb been found.
I have been hit by a car, as he drove through a red light, luckily I jumped backwards to avoid being flattened completely.

I've never lived in Allepo :laugh
Have you flown Ryanair or Easyjet though ?

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 18:41
Have you flown Ryanair or Easyjet though ?

Many times, it was a fantastic experience.

Highly recommended :tongue

Your space b4 a punctuation mark at the end of the sentence gives you away. I knew I should have been a copper :D

cvinbin
13th December 2016, 18:45
I knew I should have been a copper :D

:winker: An unemployed one i think.

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 18:48
:winker: An unemployed one i think.

:laugh

Welcome back, hows Mums basement? :rolleyes:

cvinbin
13th December 2016, 18:51
:laugh

Welcome back, hows Mums basement? :rolleyes:

Not following this line of questioning at all.
Although i am always game for a conundrum ;)

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 18:52
Not following this line of questioning at all.
Although i am always game for a conundrum ;)


No worries.

Carry on as you were :eyes

cvinbin
13th December 2016, 18:54
Carry on as you were :eyes

Is that advisable ?

NotAllThere
13th December 2016, 19:22
I can avoid being killed crossing the road by being careful, The government can avoid a terrorist attack by being careful.No. You can't.

You can only ever reduce risk, you can never avoid it. The effort involved in lowering risk further can cost too much, and/or cause concomitant increase in risk elsewhere, and/or restrict our current freedoms to such an extent as to make life unlivable.

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 19:46
Many times, it was a fantastic experience.

Highly recommended :tongue



Have you done an inter-country flight in Africa or South America?

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 21:51
Have you done an inter-country flight in Africa or South America?

No, not yet, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Andaman and Cook Islands have been more than enough

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 22:00
No, not yet, India, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Andaman and Cook Islands have been more than enough

The risk of the plane crashing is more than getting killed by a terrorist in the UK.

WTFH
13th December 2016, 22:05
Have you done an inter-country flight in Africa or South America?

Intra-country in Africa is worse than inter.
A couple in RSA, but they were on normal planes. Half a dozen in Botswana. Two of the planes I was in crashed within a month of my flights. Five in Kenya on the last trip. Only one of them was on a >10 seater, and that plane was the worst.

MrMarkyMark
13th December 2016, 22:09
The risk of the plane crashing is more than getting killed by a terrorist in the UK.

Yeh, well luckily seem to have 9 lives, needed a few in my time :smile

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 22:10
Intra-country in Africa is worse than inter.
A couple in RSA, but they were on normal planes. Half a dozen in Botswana. Two of the planes I was in crashed within a month of my flights. Five in Kenya on the last trip. Only one of them was on a >10 seater, and that plane was the worst.

Depends on the country.

I made the mistake of looking on that pilots forum a few years ago. Oddly I only fly to, from and in certain countries....

vetran
13th December 2016, 23:39
No. You can't.

You can only ever reduce risk, you can never avoid it. The effort involved in lowering risk further can cost too much, and/or cause concomitant increase in risk elsewhere, and/or restrict our current freedoms to such an extent as to make life unlivable.

Oh dear Pedant alert...

So the danger of being killed by an ISIS or other terrorist is significant. To reduce the risk lets just not let anyone in unless we can be sure they are innocent and then we will have reduced it significantly.

I'll look after the road bit!

WTFH
14th December 2016, 01:50
Oh dear Pedant alert...

So the danger of being killed by an ISIS or other terrorist is significant. To reduce the risk lets just not let anyone in unless we can be sure they are innocent and then we will have reduced it significantly.

I'll look after the road bit!

So, are you saying we need to ban people with extremist views or supporters of violence?

NotAllThere
14th December 2016, 07:11
...So the danger of being killed by an ISIS or other terrorist is significant. ...No, it isn't.

The chances of being killed by a terrorist is not significant.
The chances of a terrorists trying to get into Europe through refugee channels has been deemed to be significant.
The powers that be have decided that the sufficient and proportionate response is to beef up security across borders.