Jarpie

It is an interesting take on events and even if much might be dismissed, I think it helps to focus minds on the bigger picture rather than just the narrative our media is running with. Mission drift definitely seems to be an aspect we have to take note of and not get distracted by emotion or more parochial issues like immigration. I agree, people should be very distrustful of the media as they try to push their own politics, their interests or the interests of their owners, same goes for the public/civil servants. Here in Finland our immigration bureau is really pushing for taking new immigrants in and making a loads of more reception centers around the country, and due experience, I don't think their intentions are purely humanitarian. They are converting unused industrial etc facilities which are forbidden to be converted into buildings for habitation into the reception centers by using outsourced contracts, and as I know how finnish public offices and society works, they will give the contracts to the companies they know, have stock in or have some sort of relationship with.

Now that I've watched the video I don't agree most of her video and/or her blaming west for the problems in Syria and elsewhere of middle-east, but she does make a good point at the start of the video that a lot of people from elsewhere of middle-east are claiming to be Syrians because they are now more readily taken to the europe. As I've said before, one of my problems with the intaking all those migrants and refugees so readily of whom we can't possible know who they are or where they actually come from, is that they are taking the places of those who needs the help most and they fill up the quotas. Before anyone says that I don't trust them becaues they're arabs and/or muslims, wrong, I don't trust anyone, be they white, black, arab, asian, etc by default, period. Why would I? I don't know who they are, so I don't know are they trustworthy; trust is earned, not given. I wouldn't expect anyone I know to trust me by default either. I have genuine question to others in here, do you think does the european states and/or politicians want to really help the Syrian (or middle-eastern) people, or do you think that they just want to bring in the people who will do the jobs which the europeans generally don't want to do? I think I said before that I've learned to be very cynical realistic when it comes to the politicians and media, so I don't believe it for a second that they actually want to bring in the refugees who'd be the elderly, children, sick or women/families but instead the potentially (at least decently) educated young people who will do the low-salary jobs. I'd have quite a bit to say about how I see the modern european people, especially young generations and our welfare societies/cultures, and the effect it have had on us but it'd be too off-topic, maybe I'll start a new one or find suitable existing one.

I believe I said 15% of the people who are coming might be fundamentalists/fanatics/supremacists Yeah, and 7.375% of them might be secret My Little Pony fans, what's your point? You basically made up a figure based on conclusions drawn a few dubious polls conducted on a grand total of 0.00000875% of the Muslim population and used it to make assumptions of the refugees. Not bad for a day's work. My original question was if people would welcome in refugees/migrants from the east europe if something similar would happen as in Syria, and the said refugees would be 75% men and from the areas which would be known for having christian neo-nazis, I doubt it very much. Read all of my messages in this topic, instead of cherry picking one poorly made one from the many arguments I've made. But your original question was based on a chain of ifs and buts. IF this was happening in a European country, and IF we took in 400000 refugees, and IF 75% of them were male, and IF 15% of them were nazis, so IF we had 30,000 white supremacists here, and IF they were let to do whatever they wanted in our country (or countries) then yes, that might be a problem. But you've made that scenario up. It's in your head. It is not comparable to what's happening with Syrian refugees. So agreeing with your scenario being a bad thing is not the same as agreeing that accepting some syrian refugees is a bad thing. Nobody is challenging your right to question the taking in of refugees. It's coming out with made up scenarios and statistics that bothers people. It's like me saying "Well, Jarpie, let me ask you this. If this was happening in America, and we took in 200,000 American refugees, and 99% of them were totally normal, hard working, upstanding members of the community who would integrate into society and get a job and eventually contribute as much, if not more, to our country than any other native citizen, would you still think taking in refugees is a bad thing?" You can't disagree with that question. But it bears no relevance to what is actually happening because I've made it up. I already said that it was badly made argument, and you ignored pretty much everything else I've said. Hypotheticals are by their nature are "ifs and butts", better question probably would've been that would you welcome in hundreds of thousands of refugees of which 75% would be men from Ukraine if Russia would start invading it, which I don't think is that far-fetched? That is a much more reasonable question. Because you've only used one statistic which, as far as I know, is true (that 75% of Syrian refugees are male). You haven't included made up statistics and assumptions about those refugees being terrorists or extremists. So the answer to your second question is yes. Of course I would welcome them. It would be exactly the same as what is happening with the Syrian refugees so I see no difference. And to be honest I'm struggling to see your point now that you've removed the assumptions about them being extremists. Can you see how your second question is completely different to your first one? If I'd go back 1,5-2 years in your posting history, would I find posts where you'd call europeans to bring in ukranian refugees from the Crimea and Ukraine when Russians invaded Crimea? Oh btw, someone gave me this link in intarwebz, Syrian girl talking about the refugee situation.

I believe I said 15% of the people who are coming might be fundamentalists/fanatics/supremacists Yeah, and 7.375% of them might be secret My Little Pony fans, what's your point? You basically made up a figure based on conclusions drawn a few dubious polls conducted on a grand total of 0.00000875% of the Muslim population and used it to make assumptions of the refugees. Not bad for a day's work. My original question was if people would welcome in refugees/migrants from the east europe if something similar would happen as in Syria, and the said refugees would be 75% men and from the areas which would be known for having christian neo-nazis, I doubt it very much. Read all of my messages in this topic, instead of cherry picking one poorly made one from the many arguments I've made. But your original question was based on a chain of ifs and buts. IF this was happening in a European country, and IF we took in 400000 refugees, and IF 75% of them were male, and IF 15% of them were nazis, so IF we had 30,000 white supremacists here, and IF they were let to do whatever they wanted in our country (or countries) then yes, that might be a problem. But you've made that scenario up. It's in your head. It is not comparable to what's happening with Syrian refugees. So agreeing with your scenario being a bad thing is not the same as agreeing that accepting some syrian refugees is a bad thing. Nobody is challenging your right to question the taking in of refugees. It's coming out with made up scenarios and statistics that bothers people. It's like me saying "Well, Jarpie, let me ask you this. If this was happening in America, and we took in 200,000 American refugees, and 99% of them were totally normal, hard working, upstanding members of the community who would integrate into society and get a job and eventually contribute as much, if not more, to our country than any other native citizen, would you still think taking in refugees is a bad thing?" You can't disagree with that question. But it bears no relevance to what is actually happening because I've made it up. I already said that it was badly made argument, and you ignored pretty much everything else I've said. Hypotheticals are by their nature are "ifs and butts", better question probably would've been that would you welcome in hundreds of thousands of refugees of which 75% would be men from Ukraine if Russia would start invading it, which I don't think is that far-fetched?

I believe I said 15% of the people who are coming might be fundamentalists/fanatics/supremacists Yeah, and 7.375% of them might be secret My Little Pony fans, what's your point? You basically made up a figure based on conclusions drawn a few dubious polls conducted on a grand total of 0.00000875% of the Muslim population and used it to make assumptions of the refugees. Not bad for a day's work. My original question was if people would welcome in refugees/migrants from the east europe if something similar would happen as in Syria, and the said refugees would be 75% men and from the areas which would be known for having christian neo-nazis, I doubt it very much. Read all of my messages in this topic, instead of cherry picking one poorly made one from the many arguments I've made.

Goddammit, tapatalk destroyed the quotes, will repost tomorrow.

This was an intersting watch, made by the (apparently leftist) german tv-channel:

I believe I said 15% of the people who are coming might be fundamentalists/fanatics/supremacists, and given the gallups below I found through google, and if they are right that 19% of the muslims who lives in america think that violence is justified in order to make sharia the law in USA, you don't think those 19% of american-muslims are fundamentalist or radical? Edit: it might be lower but I'd probably say anywhere from 5% to 10% would be reasonable assumption, 15% might be tad high. "Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey and Malaysia." http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/ The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree). http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the "global Jihad (64% disagree). http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never). 28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never). http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/ World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose) 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose) 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose) A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans: (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%) About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

This will be a long one but bear with me. As I wrote earlier, certain medias are trying to make it look like and convince people that every refugee/migrant coming to europe now are all innocent people who are all from the war-torn areas/countries, and that we all just should accept what they say without having any sceptical thoughts about the people we're letting in, and doubling down on anyone who disagrees with them, so it breeds mistrust toward the media and the migrants. Big problem with the medias, for example, owned by the Murdoch is that they push and protect the interests of the billionairies and huge corporations, but on the other side of it I find that big problem with the media, especially the news media is that they think it's their job to influence public opinion according to their own politics, instead of actually impartially reporting the news, and when I've interacted with the so-called "journalists" they've always come across as arrogant, smug, defensive, and that they think they're superior to the plebs who are the common people, and that it's their duty to tell people what they should think, this goes to both left- and right-leaning journalists. As one of the greats from the 20th century, the film director, professional reporter and WW2 veteran Samuel Fuller said, "Just report the news, don't editorialise, no adjectives", as almost everything what Fuller said or did, it's a bit of hyperbole but he's got a great point, reporter/journalist should IMO never editorialise the news items. It's no wonder that conservative and/or right-wing parties are gaining popularity all across the europe, the swedish democrats are now the single biggest party in sweden, the finnish people voted in centre-party and the conservative the finns party in our elections, along with the national coalition party who are mostly pro-business/centre party, and two of our left parties; the left party and social democrats got massacred in the elections, much to the chagrin of the media and journalists. In France The National Front is gaining popularity, according to my friend who's living in germany, just by the austrian border says that the left parties are getting hit hard and that right-wing party might actually win in austria in the next election. IMO the reason why conservatives/right wing parties are gaining popularity is because that the leftist media and left parties are going toward more and more left, and pushing people who are in the centre/middle toward the right/conservatives, because they keep antagonizing and isolating themselves from the moderates, and as the centre parties are weak, spineless and gutless who are afraid of upsetting anyone, there's the right-wing parties ready to listen the moderates and use that to their advantage. Why do I bring this up in the topic about refugees? Let me say it in the context of the refugee issue...the more the people and the media who are pro-immigration calls even those who are rational and civilized racists and hate-mongers if they even question the whole thing, it keeps pushing people on the centre/middle or who are sceptical toward being more against the immigrants and toward the right-wing politics, and it will radicalize people. It breeds us vs them mentality. I abhor to think what kind of decisions right-wing/conservative parties will make in europe when they're in power, as they tend to be totalitarian and they tend to be against the personal freedom of the people. I want an honest answer from people like StefanAVFC, do you think that there's no problems at all with letting all hundreds of thousands people in, as for example germany alone expects 800 000 arrivals this year, and not talk about rest of the europe, you don't think that 800 000 new people needing places to stay won't be a problem, or 40 000 new arrivals in finland, where most of our cities are small, and will put big strain on public- and social services? Why is it so horrible thing to question the whole thing and raise reasonable issues? Why is it so horrible to raise concerns that we have no idea where these people are, who they are and are they actually refugees or just migrants who wants to move to the richer countries, and taking places of the actual people who would need the assylum the most? I think it's very important to critically think pretty much everything and questions must be raised, no matter how uncomfortable or inconvinient the subject is.

If EU, european states and NATO would really want to help Syrians and other middle-easterns in long term they'd form a big coalition between all the states and NATO and go to fight the ISIS full on, which is probably the biggest threat to the people in middle-east and future military threat for the europe unless they're dealt with. Air strikes can be useful but if the western nations would really want to make a difference, they'd go with the ground troops...The finnish media has always been saying that finnish army is one of the best in the world, according to the experts, so I'd say lets put our "worlds best army" to the test. This is what gets me, the media and politicians keeps spouting how the refugees needs our help and how those are against taking them in are racist neo-nazis, but actually vast majority of the people coming are (physically) healthy looking young men (according to the UN), instead of the people who are in need of the most help and aid (sick, elderly, women and children), but they are turning blind eye toward them and not going there and bringing them in, so I call them what they are: hypocrites. I've always thought, and I what I'll probably always think: Help first those who are in need of the most help. I have very cynical realistic view of the media and the politicians/politics, I've been following how the media works and how the real newsmedia has changed in the past 30 years, and even the traditionally decent news outlets, like finnish YLE, who is public broadcasting company, like BBC, has succumbed to the clickbaiting and trying to get audience by sensationalist headlines and articles, and this refugee situation is just another event which they are using to promote "human interest stories" to desperately cling on the audience as there's so much more competition for the different media outlets, so they are trying to out-do each other in the hope that they'd get the clicks, and when people calls them out with the statistics that most of the people migrating are young men, they double-down, as they can't bring themselves to admit that they *gasp* might be wrong or that people coming in here might not be those who are most in the need of the help. Anything to keep narrative alive about the poor down-trodden helpless people and appearances of the infallible news media alive.

I think it should've been clear that I meant europe as a whole, as I am not from UK, and based on what we've seen in last week or two is that they gather and move in big groups, so I was trying to say that the logistics of handling so much bigger groups is gonna be so much harder when they move to the train stations or walk through roads. You don't think that'd be a problem? As I said, we can't possibly know who or from where they all are, so EU and european states needs to find a way to keep it organized and process them so those who needs the help most can be prioritized. From wikipedia: "Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman – well above replacement level (2.1), the minimum typically needed to maintain a stable population.", so if the family has the husband, wife, three kids, it's them family of five on average.

And they delete and block any comments that aren't in favour of their views. It's fascism and it's scary. I tend to hate both (far) left and (far) right for the same reason: in my experience they are both the same shit in different rhetoric, the more you move toward the extreme in either direction, the more the both move toward the authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies: Different sides of the same coin. Don't see the far left with 800,000 people liking a Facebook hate group then censoring the comments though. I've seen high profile member of the finnish left party saying in finnish television discussion program that violence from radical left is acceptable because it has different target than the radical right wing neo-nazis, and I've seen finnish left(ist) newspapers/-sites deleting comments/comment sections where the posters have been completely civilized but having conservative and/or (but not necessarely) anti-immigration opinions or being critical of the immigration policies. Would you like a shovel? Why? Because I think that left can be as retarded as the right?

Oh ffs, I didn't say 15% are terrorists, I said fundamentalists/fanatics/supremacists, and as much as I hate neo-nazis and other extreme right wingers, I don't think all of them are terrorists, as I don't think all of the muslim fundamentalists/fanatics are terrorists. And they delete and block any comments that aren't in favour of their views. It's fascism and it's scary. I tend to hate both (far) left and (far) right for the same reason: in my experience they are both the same shit in different rhetoric, the more you move toward the extreme in either direction, the more the both move toward the authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies: Different sides of the same coin. Don't see the far left with 800,000 people liking a Facebook hate group then censoring the comments though. I've seen high profile member of the finnish left party saying in finnish television discussion program that violence from radical left is acceptable because it has different target than the radical right wing neo-nazis, and I've seen finnish left(ist) newspapers/-sites deleting comments/comment sections where the posters have been completely civilized but having conservative and/or (but not necessarely) anti-immigration opinions or being critical of the immigration policies.

And they delete and block any comments that aren't in favour of their views. It's fascism and it's scary. I tend to hate both (far) left and (far) right for the same reason: in my experience they are both the same shit in different rhetoric, the more you move toward the extreme in either direction, the more the both move toward the authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies: Different sides of the same coin.

I tend to stay away from contentional political subjects but I'll throw in my two cents. My problem with taking in all of these people is that first of all, they are gonna cost fortunes to process, settle, fed etc, especially looking at my own country who's national debt has doubled since 2008, and the amount of debt we're taking per year keeps just increasing so there's no end in sight, and the state has to make drastic cuts to welfare system, education, healthcare, taking care of the old people and so on. If people think we're getting many now and it's gonna be chaotic to process them, doing background checks, interviews, keeping track of them, getting places for them to stay etc, just wait for next spring when we're gonna get many times more at once, and in the worst case scenario, the number of them arriving per week (or month) could even be ten times of what we're getting now. Can you imagine how **** hard it's gonna be to process them all? Uncontrolled intake of migrants and refugees is IMO recipe for disaster as it's not just the refugees we're getting, we're gonna get the criminals and the like who are coming to europe looking for easier living, than actual people in need. Sure, some of them are leaving the middle-east because they want to leave the oppressive and tyrannical culture/society, and/or ISIS, and come to open and democractic society/culture, but there are gonna be many fanatics or other people who will not live by our laws, norms and doesn't tolerate the other way of living than their own. There are going to be more unscrupulous people going to the people smuggling business who don't care about the safety of the people they are smuggling, and more people who are even more desperate to get to the "promised land" away from the middle-east. Europeans should prioritize taking in the elderly, sick, women, children and families, but even according to UN, 75% of the people coming in are men, oh and I know people are gonna say "But it's easier for them to come than bring their families" to which I want to reply with, how do they plan to bring in their wifes, elderly, children etc if they're already in here and are not there to help them with their trek from the middle east to europe? If we're getting up to, what 800 000-1 000 000 people by the end of the year as some predictions say, and 75% of them are men, as they've been so far according to the UN and let's say half of them have families, and they all manage to bring their families to europe, it's gonna be 1,5 million people if the average size of their families is 5 people, on top of the 800 000. In every huge situation or issue you should always prepare for the worst-case scenario and think rationally instead of rushing into it without actual planning and wishing for the best. There gotta be better way than this to deal with this situation. I don't say that europe should just close the borders, but I think better plan would be to gather them in camps around the borders of europe (or countries) and process them there, prioritizing those who needs the most help. Edit: And no, I'm not meaning internment camps or concentration camps, I think you can build very humane camps for them and provide them with good enough healthcare etc without the camps being inhumane. And last, let me ask you people question who will undoubetly call me racist or hate-monger, if same thing what has happened in Syria, would happen in a country like...say...Romania, Czech, Bulgaria, Hungary or other eastern european states and you'd suddenly start to get 300 000 - 400 000 refugees, and they'd be from the areas which are very known for having a lot of fundamentalist christian neo-nazis, would you invite them all in if 75% of them would be men with good chance of, say, 15% being neo-nazis? That's something like 20 000 - 30 000 white supremacists all across europe.

Finland has won two straight games and people are going "The dream for the tournament still lives!" lol, fat chance.

Berba must've been asking for like 100k/week

"Right, where are we at with the potential deal of the day: Anthony Martial to Manchester United? Well, our man Saj Chowdhury has dug out this nugget... Monaco say the deal is 80m euros (£58.75m) including bonus. The club were reluctant to sell him until United raised the initial fee they were willing to pay to 60m euros (£44m)." Insanity, other PL clubs claimedly could've gotten him for 14 million pounds.

I can't believe we'd try to sign Gayle on loan, his scoring record is pretty much as bad as Gabby's

Gourcuff is a free Agent at the minute i believe. Also crocked: "Gourcuff has consistently suffered injury since he has joined Lyon, missing over 90 games due to injury during his tenure with the club."

Westy should've buried that!

**** finally.

Need Bacuna off and Gil on ffs.

Sherwood doing MON imperssion.

Looks like last season was a blip from Clark.