Thanks Baff, that means something. It's the disagreements that really help you refine and test whether your arguments hold merit, and just as it there isn't much gained by simply saying "I agree with this post" there is even less gained in saying "I disagree with this post" or "tl;dr lol"
In other news, European Commission officials have called for the creation of a 'security union' to present a more united front against terrorists and criminals.
Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi called Tuesday for a "European pact for freedom and security.”
“Today they hit Belgium, but they also hit the capital of the European Union," Renzi said in a speech, vowing that "it will take months, perhaps years, but we will beat them."
Does Renzi seriously believe this is a threat that can be beat? They flow like oil, spreading out everywhere, and just as prone to combustion. This security Union would have to rely on the French and British security bureaus, meaning they would no doubt demand authority over them. Those bureaus are too much power for Brussels to wield.
In theory, a security union would help prevent such lapses, but Juncker’s demand was immediately attacked by UK Independence Party MEP Mike Hookem, his party’s defense spokesman, who said: “Juncker must be literally mad if he thinks people will sign up to a security union with the EU after it has shown itself dangerously incompetent on this issue.”
Quite so, the question is still up whether the EU acted out of dogmatism or malice when it hushed the Med murders of the Christian refugees or the return of foreign fighters happening before our eyes. When the Kurds, Arabs and Israelis deterred refugees due to infiltration and suicide bombing, when the Serbs caught ISIS fighters with execution videos on their phones, when fake Turkish passports began appearing in the Balkans? How is it even after ISIS fighters boasted about how the Schengen area and the open door policy the EU pursued made their return home so easy in order to plan their attacks the EU took no responsibility, and instead used their attacks as excuses to centralize more power?
Alexander Ritzmann, a senior research fellow at the Brandenburg Institute for Society and Security who has worked in the area of counterterrorism for many years, questioned the capacity of the intelligence agencies to address the issues relating to Islamic extremism, religious radicalization and violent extremism.
He said he was “amazed” that 15 years after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the West still “did not seem to understand” that terrorism was merely a “tactic” to achieve a specific objective.
Aye, I find it funny things like these. Like people who think Anonymous is a group and not a state of being, or that terrorism is an army that can be defeated, not too different to declaring war on spies. Bit pointless.
Meanwhile, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has condemned “in the strongest terms” the terrorist attacks.
“Brussels is the home of NATO headquarters and the capital of Belgium and Europe. It is also a symbol of a Europe whole, free and at peace. We will defend our values against the callous acts of those who seek to strike against them. We are resolute in our determination to prevent and defeat terrorism. We will do this by standing together, as open societies and as democracies,” he said.
The capital of Europe? Free? At peace? Terrorism will be stopped with open societies? And why aren't we pursuing democracy if we pay it lip service? Many, many questions, and it seems the obvious answer is Jens is just talking about the Commission's agenda in creating a single state of Europe, capital Brussels, borders open and power centralized. Well, of course given that this is the guy who as Prime Minister of Norway was a staunch advocate of Norwegian EU membership. The fact that he is an inspired disciple of Tony Blair just takes the icing on the cake hahahaha
In the darkest night you see people fly their true colours in the shadows
For what it's worth, LW is about 50% of why my perspective on immigration has shifted as much as it has.
I also have a hard time seeing him as a conservative. Always feels more like a progressive who's as pissed at the morons allegedly on his side as everyone else, but maybe that's just me projecting.
I'd still consider myself progressive if the definition of progressive had not radically changed as of recent times. Maybe progresiv really is useful in defining the difference. I don't think I could be conservative (the party or philosophically) even if I wanted to and I had to stop supporting the likes of the Liberal Democrats or Labour because they had just become too insipid to the point where either purple or blue became by far the most attractive choice.
For what it's worth, your lack of paragraphs often infuriates me, and occasionally I'm left mystified when you quote someone talking about about a subject I'm intrigued on and your reply is something mysterious and arcane like 'Lobster haram! Ban all lobster!', but overall, I've learned a hell of a lot from reading your posts and I greatly appreciate the effort you put into making them. Hell, it was reading some of your posts that made me put in the effort to try to source my own arguments thoroughly and develop them a little beyond 'Because nyah!'.
Read the bits preceding lobster enrichment
The lobster bit was just a joke on Sweden, fishing and enrichment narratives mixed together
See I didn't want to look dumb replying to Toady's post but sometimes I have no clue what is shitposting and what isn't.
Saying lots of things that exist to perpetuate and mutate memes, not transfer information
Also I can't imagine you being progressive, in part because I can't imagine you writing anything that doesn't sound like you should have a title like 'The Crazed Hierophant' as opposed to an actual name.
EDIT: I left half a dozen spelling errors in this thing and they make me feel terrible. Also on reflection, progressive-LW warning us all of a coming Trumpocalypse doesn't seem so impossible.
Well I don't see why you would think that as there is literally nothing wrong with multiculturalism, we should really think of the great benefits to child sexuality development that sexual revolution and diversity will bring to the oppressive homogenous societies of Europe and do you honestly believe the UK can survive without accepting its social responsibilities in housing Eastern Europeans, whom it brutally colonized with Western capitalism against communists just trying to defend themselves from international banking cartels? Come off it, what we really need to do is disband our Regular Army, cease hiring Gurkhas, decommission all of our nuclear weapons and warships (which will be converted into hospital ships), such weapons have no place in a civilized society. We already have the largest foreign aid budget in the world but have we considered accepting more refugees too? How can we say no to someone who wants to live in our country simply because they were not born in the Commonwealth and can't access legal channels, extralegal migrants have needs too and the very definition of discriminating against someone simply because they were born somewhere else is xenophobia, prejudice against foreigners simple as. Oh, maybe we should keep the minesweepers and science vessels, they're still good. Though we should not conduct any oil or mineral exploration in the arctic and we should get China and Russia to agree to not do it too, and why are we even in the Falklands, it should belong to the indigenous natives whom we conquered.
P.s. how is Trump not Hitler?
Author
Topic: The friendly and polite Europe related terrible jokes thread (Read 1006659 times)