Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lemon10]

I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum.

It really isn't that simple. You seem to be implying that everyone who smuggles people across borders are human traffickers with the added implication they sell people as slaves, or kill the people that pay to cross instead of taking the risk to actually take them.
And they really aren't. Yes, there is a nontrivial amount of them who are terrible terrible people that do exactly that, but not all of them are, and I suspect that the vast majority of them are not.

Most of them are just people that want to make a lot of money, don't care about the rules of countries that they don't live in, and (possibly) want to help people find a better life away from all the nastiness.

[Frumple]

nobody asked you to fund anything from the mujahedin to the syrian rebels

france for instance is keeping the post-colonial mess together, mali being a recent example, you only serve to wreck things further

We didn't ask anyone to fund anything from the mujahedin to the syrian rebels, either, if it helps you any. There's apparently bugfuck crazy people controlling that sort of stuff, and you don't see many of us liking it. Blame the other major powers (*cougheuropecough*) for not stepping up to the world police position and reducing the reasons the crazies had to act like that :V

Congrats to france, though, I guess, for all it kinda' looks like mali is having and been continuing to have some problems. Still, one out of however many of the EU managed to completely bugger their foreign adventurism is better than none.

[misko27]

you see m8

you know what sparked most of the immigration europe is currently enjoying?

american military adventures(tm)

asking us to pick up your slack is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? but then we don't have the entire atlantic between us and the problem, so we can't act all confused about it as it's right in our faces

Yeah, like the American military adventure that kept the Muslims in the Balkans from being wiped. Turns out they realized the Balkans is a poor shithole and decided to leave for greener pastures, AKA you whiners.

[LordSlowpoke]

Yeah, like the American military adventure that kept the Muslims in the Balkans from being wiped. Turns out they realized the Balkans is a poor shithole and decided to leave for greener pastures, AKA you whiners.
[/quote]

croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution

[Baffler]

france for instance is keeping the post-colonial mess together,

Not really, no.

Mali worked out alright. Not good, but alright. Then you look at Algeria, and the rest of their colonies, and it sort of falls apart. How're things going in the CAR, or Gabon right now?

croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution

The point is that the Balkans are Europe's backyard, but the distant United States that "always fucks it up anyway" is somehow responsible for taking care of them.

[Rolan7]

France pulled out of Rwanda and Vietnam.  The US has made mistakes while trying to install governments which are stable and, yes, sympathetic to the US and Western democracy.  Sorry not sorry for trying.  Despite our crippling economic issues at home, we handed out 50 billion dollars last year in foreign aid.  But we're just the fat idiot imperialists in everyone's mind (which is hilariously hypocritical in some cases).  It's not like all these fucked up post-colonial countries were OUR colonies.

So "nobody asked you" is a shitty thing to say when European empires fucked up the third world, and we're trying to help put it back together.  Particularly considering that, actually, we do get asked for help.  A LOT.  And we do help because we're in a position to do so, and it doesn't matter how ungrateful people are.

Some of our military actions were unjustified, and practically all of them benefited our massive military industrial complex.  But we're doing our best with a shitty situation.

[Calidovi]

Someone just pointed out all of his photos have filters on them to darken his skin otherwise it becomes too obvious he's whiter than most Caucasoids:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And he slagged off his Mum saying she had an affair so he didn't know who his father was. This is a comparison of the father on his birth certificate with him:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Understandably social media is turning up the grill to 11

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Mfw they take no survivors and don't punch soft
Seems there's 4 main camps of people in regards to this;

• They did it for privileges
• They did it out of self-loathing
• They're absolute cons
• This is hilarious

How long until people claiming their otherkinship in a professional setting becomes a norm.

bc we sheepkin need our rights pls xd

*EDIT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Sides: Orbital
Also just so no one gets confused that's not the bloke that's Ali G

Science...

[SirQuiamus]

I see zero impracticality or moral ambiguity in regards to killing human traffickers, who are plain and simple scum. I'm not talking about death penalty as they do in the east, more simple use of lethal force to disrupt trafficking operations in north africa and turkey.

Ah yeah, zero impracticality. I mean, it's not like our smuggler-killers would have any trouble locating and identifying their targets: Them blighters are all chilling on the beach, selling tickets to refugees while sipping margaritas. Send a small detachment of Gurkhas and we're all set and done.

...

Just ask Obama if you wanna know how easy it is to kill a handful of sneaky fucker needles in a collapsed state haystack.

EDIT: And you would, of course, also have to kill everyone who might consider getting into that lucrative business sometime in the future, when the current practitioners have been conveniently knocked off. When there's a demand for dirty low-down business, dirty low-down businessmen will keep popping up like heads of a hydra.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: Frumple (click to show/hide)

... so drastically increase the chances of the smugglers being even worse sorts of people.

Already working with Jihadis, can't get worse.

Double-down on the likelihood of hostage situations and atrocities beforehand.

Between Christians being thrown overboard and boats sinking I'd rather tackle a problem than just let them do their thing.

Give massive incentive to smugglers to start resorting to violence when caught.

Already working with Jihadis for a reason. They get access to serious artillery. They don't have control of the seas however, that belongs to the West's fuckhueg warships.

Make sure that the trip and arranging it is even more dangerous for the refugees and immigrants, while doing jack-all to reduce the pressures causing them to flee their originating point.

Wait, so intercepting them and putting them on solid ground is more dangerous? Letting them embark on the dangerous journey is safer than not? And pardon, but short of bankrupting Europe there is nothing that can be done to "reduce the pressures causing them to flee their originating point."

I've never quite understood why anti-immigration folks seem so damned and determined to escalate from just bloody killing them to doing their best to make sure the people are tortured and then killed.

No to anti-immigration, no to being folk, and I don't see where torture comes in.

It's like the identified chain of cause and effect stops one stop out and refuses to go any further, presumably in the name of some twisted (almost entirely unrealistic) conceptualization of deterrent.
"Sure, I surrounded their yard in explosives and incendiaries to try to get them to stop smoking, but they're the ones that caused the fire that set it all off. Clearly it's their fault the neighborhood burned down, not mine."

I didn't exactly give the order to arm Jihadis in Syria, I thought that was a stupid idea and the dressed up moderates weren't exactly desecrating graves out of their desire to express moderation. I was against it, and would rather see my country not suffer because Obama wanted to rek syria

Spoiler: lemon10 (click to show/hide)

It really isn't that simple. You seem to be implying that everyone who smuggles people across borders are human traffickers with the added implication they sell people as slaves, or kill the people that pay to cross instead of taking the risk to actually take them.

What the hell was I implying with slaves or killing, doesn't matter if they are sending them off with no regard to their future or sending them off to be sex slaves or whatever. One's worse than the other but both are worth stopping. Human traffickers are trafficking humans. Simple as.

And they really aren't. Yes, there is a nontrivial amount of them who are terrible terrible people that do exactly that, but not all of them are, and I suspect that the vast majority of them are not.

Yeah they work with Islamic State associates because they are good people at heart, sending off hundreds in kennel conditions to suffocate or drown. I'm sure the majority are really compassionate people. No, I don't think so - they're fucking people over for money. Terrible people, who have much to answer for - more than they could ever answer for in a lifetime.

Most of them are just people that want to make a lot of money, don't care about the rules of countries that they don't live in, and (possibly) want to help people find a better life away from all the nastiness.

I appreciate your faith in humanity

Spoiler: SirQuiamus (click to show/hide)

Ah yeah, zero impracticality. I mean, it's not like our smuggler-killers would have any trouble locating and identifying their targets: Them blighters are all chilling on the beach, selling tickets to refugees while sipping margaritas. Send a small detachment of Gurkhas and we're all set and done.

Europe is already destroying their boats. You don't need to kill them to destroy their business, though it certainly helps. Gurkhas are overkill.

Just ask Obama if you wanna know how easy it is to kill a handful of sneaky fucker needles in a collapsed state haystack.

Between survey ships, drones, informants and the vast security bureaus of Russia, Britain, USA, France and the rest of Yurop - well for certain their ships are fucked, and finding them will be one step ahead. Who knows, could give incentive to Western nations to finish what they started in Libya. European ships already patrol Libyan coasts (just for security reasons), countering human trafficking goes hand in hand.

Oh and in regards to the whole America vs Europe in whodunnit, who broke everything, you're still drone striking Libya right now and it's still making more terrorists than it kills. I reckon it's more the method than the sentiment really, drones affect the psyche in a way different to human soldiers. And you still see crap like with Al Qaeda saying some kid had his legs blown off by a US drone strike when in reality it was their own mortar strike. Gits. To top it off US trained armies deserted and joined ISIS with billions of dollars of equipment. You're not making it easy for Europeans to clean up, it's a bit rich to then go on and both blame Europeans and also demand Europeans roll over and accept very American consequences. At the same time, at least the US is trying if a bit counterproductive. This really is a lose-lose scenario, where to do nothing means loss, to bomb means stalemate and to wage war with boots on the ground means fighting whilst still wearing the wounds of the unending campaign in Afghanistan. It's lucky that American dollars last longer than Islamic state lives but this is going to be a long string of wars no one is fixing any time soon. You can secure your country and try helping, or fail in both.
*EDIT

Spoiler: SirQuiamus (click to show/hide)

EDIT: And you would, of course, also have to kill everyone who might consider getting into that lucrative business sometime in the future, when the current practitioners have been conveniently knocked off. When there's a demand for dirty low-down business, dirty low-down businessmen will keep popping up like heads of a hydra.

Consider that slavery still exists today in spite of 200 years of policing by the greatest militaries the world has ever seen. Complete and total elimination is unlikely, but great reduction? Achievable. Because of aforementioned policing slavery went from being endemic to nearly every civilization to confined to desert wastelands where no one really treads.

[misko27]

croatia confirmed for not balkans, and that the eu has zero interest in admitting balkan states

thank you for your contribution

Croatia? Irrelevant.

Kosovo. Tens of thousands, fleeing into the EU through Serbia and into Hungary.

The exodus appears to have been abetted by an EU-encouraged easing of travel rules in Serbia, which since 2012 has allowed Kosovars to enter with Kosovo-issued documents that Belgrade previously rejected given that it does not recognise its former southern province as independent.

Clearly America's fault. Why didn't we just Milosevic be Milosevic?

Also Nigerians. Clearly Boko Haram is America's fault, despite America never having been involved there. Also Syria, because America clearly caused the Arab Spring by telling a Tunisian to set himself on fire. And Eritrea? Well I'm sure Emperor Haile Selassie only annexed them because America, somehow (nevermind Selassie's noted neutrality). And Sudan (how dare America broker peace deals), and Ghana, and Kenya.

America's done plenty of bad things, but it's not the cause of everything bad that happens. Certainly not the one who "caused this whole immigration crisis", unless you have some evidence to back that up. These countries were already messed up bad, and that's largely a legacy of European colonization (except Ethiopia's case, I suppose).

[Frumple]

Already working with Jihadis, can't get worse.

Some are. I guess trying to make that "all" would help somehow...?

Wait, so intercepting them and putting them on solid ground is more dangerous? Letting them embark on the dangerous journey is safer than not?

Give the smugglers direct and even stronger incentive to screw things up before solid ground is reached or while that intercepting is occurring, yeah, that makes things more dangerous. And hey, yeah, someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey probably has something worse waiting back home.

I don't see where torture comes in.

You directly want to see suffering increased across the board for the non-smugglers involved in the process. Instead of just killing 'em, you want them to hurt more, first. Not many other words than torture for suffering for the sake of suffering.

I didn't exactly give the order to arm Jihadis in Syria, I thought that was a stupid idea and the dressed up moderates weren't exactly desecrating graves out of their desire to express moderation. I was against it, and would rather see my country not suffer because Obama wanted to rek syria.

We agree on that much, at least, by and large. Bit too late, though. Now's just the fixing. Do you really want america to keep trying to fix things on their lonesome? Still, I'd rather not see my country suffer -- like it has been, to an irritating degree -- because the rest of the world won't get off their arse and help out more. States could use the help! It ain't been doing to well the last decade or so.

Because of aforementioned policing slavery went from being endemic to nearly every civilization to confined to desert wastelands where no one really treads.

Modern slavery is a 150 billion dollar industry with significant presence in first world countries. Confined to desert wastelands it is not even remotely. Slavery hasn't exactly stopped being endemic. Less endemic, probably. Less overt in most countries, definitely. But the shit's still very much there.

[Loud Whispers]

Some are. I guess trying to make that "all" would help somehow...?

Makes little difference whether they're just paying taxes to ISIS or working with them, both are grounds for attack

Wait, so intercepting them and putting them on solid ground is more dangerous? Letting them embark on the dangerous journey is safer than not?

Give the smugglers direct and even stronger incentive to screw things up before solid ground is reached or while that intercepting is occurring, yeah, that makes things more dangerous. And hey, yeah, someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey probably has something worse waiting back home.

Give the smugglers what incentive to screw things up? They don't even have an incentive to exactly be health and safety compliant right now. No refunds, especially when you're dead. The only thing safer than a round of trafficking is no rounds of trafficking. And someone desperate enough to embark on that dangerous journey? Everything's better in Europe than at home, or so the brochures say. They should just be given asylum in America

I don't see where torture comes in.

You directly want to see suffering increased across the board for the non-smugglers involved in the process. Instead of just killing 'em, you want them to hurt more, first. Not many other words than torture for suffering for the sake of suffering.

???
I see a lot of emotional assertions but if you're going to call me a torturer explain yourself, otherwise it's just preaching to the choir that Europe should shoulder the world's problems before it's even solved its own

I didn't exactly give the order to arm Jihadis in Syria, I thought that was a stupid idea and the dressed up moderates weren't exactly desecrating graves out of their desire to express moderation. I was against it, and would rather see my country not suffer because Obama wanted to rek syria.

We agree on that much, at least, by and large. Bit too late, though. Now's just the fixing. Do you really want america to keep trying to fix things on their lonesome? Still, I'd rather not see my country suffer -- like it has been, to an irritating degree -- because the rest of the world won't get off their arse and help out more. States could use the help! It ain't been doing to well the last decade or so.

You say that like Britain hasn't been by America in all this for better and worse

Modern slavery is a 150 billion dollar industry with significant presence in first world countries. Confined to desert wastelands it is not even remotely. Slavery hasn't exactly stopped being endemic. Less endemic, probably. Less overt in most countries, definitely. But the shit's still very much there.

I'm not talking about forced labour, marriages or other forms of bondage, I'm talking about literal slavery - very upfront one person owning another as property slavery. And if you think it's bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the Atlantic, African and Muslim slave trade continued to this day. Shit's there, but it'd be foolish to just give up and try to live with it rather than fight it.

[ArKFallen]

Silly EU trying to control immigration, you no can limit population~

Frumple you just argued against not torpedoing smuggler ships.
Or do you want the EU to have a completely open border policy. The EU is fucktons more dense with people than the US and if the latter you are endorsing these people to flood EU ghettos. That is going to spike racism like profits after layoffs.

I'm not talking about forced labour, marriages or other forms of bondage, I'm talking about literal slavery - very upfront one person owning another as property slavery. And if you think it's bad now, imagine what it'd be like if the Atlantic, African and Muslim slave trade continued to this day. Shit's there, but it'd be foolish to just give up and try to live with it rather than fight it.

So chattel slavery.

[Frumple]

If there's anything I'd want to see, it's the EU folks advocating for trying help and/or process folks instead of trying to spike the death toll involved with the whole mess. Ramping up the violence and suffering involved isn't going to help anyone, but especially not the folks trying to live through all this. Is why I get salty about propositions that boil down to "Let's start killing people and getting innocents caught in the crossfire, that'll help!"

And hell, if you need to ship folks over to the US or canada or whatever the hell, go for it. I'd support it. Probably not a goddamn chance of getting the xenophobic jackanapes running the government to agree to it, but I'd vote yes if it came to a vote.

[Rolan7]

I'm cool with accepting more immigrants to America as long as they're legal.  Trying to compete with illegal off-the-books labor makes people turn to racism and "conservative" anti-immigrant policies, even though it's the conservatives doing the illegal hiring.  It's a masterful scheme.  (The labor is done for far under minimum wage, see, making it impossible to compete with)

Hell I even resent illegal immigrants for voluntarily supporting the scheme.  It's directly hurt me and mine.  We'd be better off if they were deported, the criminals.  But I support pardoning and a path to citizenship because inclusiveness and multiculturalism makes America strong.  Even though it's more competition for young job seekers who are already here.  Just... make it a fair competition by granting citizenship.  Or deportation.  The status quo is a neocon wet dream.