One dead in knife attack in Hamburg supermarket, motive unclear

[roobaa01]

@simple1 yes a true blooded believer in the geneva convention, which in no paragraph cites WAR as a reason for claiming to be a refugee. Hence no syrian, no iraqui, no fghani, no somali etc....are in this respect refugees, no they are illegal migrant with no rights to be in Germany.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[simple1]

7 hours ago, roobaa01 said:

@simple1 yes a true blooded believer in the geneva convention, which in no paragraph cites WAR as a reason for claiming to be a refugee. Hence no syrian, no iraqui, no fghani, no somali etc....are in this respect refugees, no they are illegal migrant with no rights to be in Germany.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Inform NATO and others no war / armed conflict in the countries you mention, it would save a great deal of money and human resources, but you will find they disagree with you. The Geneva Convention does not define refugees, but does define protocols for protection and support of civilians during armed conflict.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

 

The internationally accepted definition of a refugee by way of ratification and signature to the UN Convention for Refugees by UN member countries is:

 

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Inform NATO and others no war / armed conflict in the countries you mention, it would save a great deal of money and human resources, but you will find they disagree with you. The Geneva Convention does not define refugees, but does define protocols for protection and support of civilians during armed conflict.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

 

The internationally accepted definition of a refugee by way of ratification and signature to the UN Convention for Refugees by UN member countries is:

 

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

 

Which just about gives anybody the right to claim refugee status, legitimate or not. Then all, including those with illegitimate claims, have to be scrutinised, usually without the benefit of destroyed documents, a time consuming and expensive exercise while the claimants are given housing, food, medical treatment, education, etc at the expense of their hosts. And then face the problems of removal of those judged illegitimate.

Given the flood of applicants, how long do you think before those paying start to run out of generosity, and tired of the ill-mannered habits of their guests?

[Scott]

54 minutes ago, halloween said:

Which just about gives anybody the right to claim refugee status, legitimate or not. Then all, including those with illegitimate claims, have to be scrutinised, usually without the benefit of destroyed documents, a time consuming and expensive exercise while the claimants are given housing, food, medical treatment, education, etc at the expense of their hosts. And then face the problems of removal of those judged illegitimate.

Given the flood of applicants, how long do you think before those paying start to run out of generosity, and tired of the ill-mannered habits of their guests?

No, it does not give 'just about anybody' the right to claim refugee status.   The key words there are a well-founded fear of persecution.   That criteria is pretty strict.   It does not include those who are simply discriminated against.   It does not include poverty.   The test includes objective and subjective criteria and known conditions in  the country.   Objective criteria is factual and verifiable treatment of people from the specific group.   Subjective criteria is for the person to substantiate that the persecution has or will likely happen to them.  

 

For example, denying a group primary education (grade school) is grounds for persecution.   Denial of secondary education and beyond is discriminatory, but does not amount to persecution.  

[simple1]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

Which just about gives anybody the right to claim refugee status, legitimate or not. Then all, including those with illegitimate claims, have to be scrutinised, usually without the benefit of destroyed documents, a time consuming and expensive exercise while the claimants are given housing, food, medical treatment, education, etc at the expense of their hosts. And then face the problems of removal of those judged illegitimate.

Given the flood of applicants, how long do you think before those paying start to run out of generosity, and tired of the ill-mannered habits of their guests?

You are not actually concerned about the causes and conditions for DSPs, refugees & asylum seekers around the world so can't be bothered.

 

EDIT.

 

I see Scott has responded to some of your comments, again I'm positive you don't give a damn. Let's see if you prove me wrong.

Edited August 1, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

Just now, Scott said:

No, it does not give 'just about anybody' the right to claim refugee status.   The key words there are a well-founded fear of persecution.   That criteria is pretty strict.   It does not include those who are simply discriminated against.   It does not include poverty.   The test includes objective and subjective criteria and known conditions in  the country.   Objective criteria is factual and verifiable treatment of people from the specific group.   Subjective criteria is for the person to substantiate that the persecution has or will likely happen to them.  

 

For example, denying a group primary education (grade school) is grounds for persecution.   Denial of secondary education and beyond is discriminatory, but does not amount to persecution.  

On the contrary, there are many, if not most, falsely claiming refugee status, nationality, even religion. They have the right to claim it, the falseness of the claim has to be disproved.

OTOH a 'legitimate' claim can be be made by any muslim announcing he has rejected his religion.

[Scott]

Wrong.   Because a Muslim rejects his religion he may certainly face discrimination, but the question is does the country he is being returned to punish him.   If they don't, then it's not persecution.  

 

Refugee status has to do with how the gov't treats people and what protection they provide for people.  

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You are not actually concerned about the causes and conditions for DSPs, refugees & asylum seekers around the world so can't be bothered.

I would be quite happy to see their problems attended to in their own countries. As it is, they bring their conflicts and social disfunction to societies that have resolved themselves peacefully. Why should their needs override those of the citizens expected to host them indefinitely? why should Australians have to be on guard for those who wish to destroy an aircraft from within Australia, or Germans against those who decide to randomly murder?

 

 

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

I would be quite happy to see their problems attended to in their own countries. As it is, they bring their conflicts and social disfunction to societies that have resolved themselves peacefully. Why should their needs override those of the citizens expected to host them indefinitely? why should Australians have to be on guard for those who wish to destroy an aircraft from within Australia, or Germans against those who decide to randomly murder?

 

 

Migrant rights do not override those of local nationals - total nonsense. As to the rest - OK then ban all migrants from all countries / religions as some  from all groups commit crime / murder. In Oz those from the NZ commit more crimes than any other foreign group - ban them all I say - LOL

[halloween]

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Migrant rights do not override those of local nationals - total nonsense. As to the rest - OK then ban all migrants from all countries / religions as some  from all groups commit crime / murder. In Oz those from the NZ commit more crimes than any other foreign group - ban them all I say - LOL

Do you think the requirements of refugees are free? Do you not recognise the huge increases in violent crime in Germany and elsewhere? Those monetary and social costs are borne by the citizens of that country.

I have nothing against legal migration, but I certainly would discriminate against a religion which teaches that murder in the name of that religion is acceptable. The problem being that those legally migrating may refute those teachings, but their children, citizens of the host country, may not. Do you deny that problem exists?

I haven't heard of any Kiwis planning to blow up a plane, or exploding a bomb in a football stadium, have you?

[halloween]

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

Wrong.   Because a Muslim rejects his religion he may certainly face discrimination, but the question is does the country he is being returned to punish him.   If they don't, then it's not persecution.  

 

Refugee status has to do with how the gov't treats people and what protection they provide for people.  

So if they would not be persecuted by their government, only by their fellow citizens, they are not refugees?

[Scott]

Just now, halloween said:

So if they would not be persecuted by their government, only by their fellow citizens, they are not refugees?

Basically, yes. 

[Orton Rd]

seems to have gone way off topic, from a jihadist attack in Germany to what constitutes a refugee, who today are mainly economic illegal would be immigrant liars, pretending to be in danger or persecuted to get round immigration laws.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Basically, yes. 

I have read that the Oz government returned refugees against their will. e.g. Hazaras to Afghanistan, some of whom were subsequently murdered. Don't know if the policy is still in place.

Edited August 1, 2017 by simple1

[bert bloggs]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:55 PM, simple1 said:

Bad as it is if the reporting is correct, there were 34,443 violent attacks using a weapon in Germany during 2016. No doubt you will be pleased to learn "A significant proportion of bodily harm offences resulted from fights between migrants, while only about six percent of violent offenses were directed at a nonmigrant". 

 

http://www.dw.com/en/more-murder-and-violence-in-germany/a-38567642

Oh ,then its not a problem ,they come to our shores bringing their medievil ways with them ,but only kill each other ,no problems then , (head back into sand)"

[bert bloggs]

17 hours ago, simple1 said:

Nope it is currently alleged it was an attack by a Iraqi Kurd criminal against a property owned by his father in law with whom he had had an argument. Bouncer was killed, was he of Christian heritage? If he was probably not the actual target for revenge killing, though investigations may prove otherwise. In this specific instance, best to wait and see the outcome of police investigations before claiming an act of Islamist terror.

 

EDIT:

An update OP on TV...

 

 

An Iraqi KURD ,says it all terrorist or criminal ,if he had not been allowed into the country there would have not been a problem Muslim terrorist or criminal , your still dead .

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Have you ever heard of humanitarian programs? I would bet overall significantly more violent crime is committed in Germany by German nationals than 'migrants', which is of course ignored by you, plus most of the international media - wonder why. 

 

Off topic:

NZ nationals & other foreigners have committed far more murders in Oz that the dreaded, by some, Muslims in the past few decades. I live in SE Queensland where I think it was three or four random females murdered in the past 18 moths i.e. not partner / family by non Islamists.

 

Can't be bothered to reply any more as an obvious waste of your & my time.

 

Criminal activities carried out by citizens are sort of a "fact of life" thing. Criminal activities perpetrated by outsiders are often viewed as an unacceptable "extra". Crudely putting it another way - citizens are seen as having the "right" to break the law, whereas outsiders do not. I think that many people apply this way of seeing things, whether overtly or not. Could possibly be carried further if reviewing legalities and law enforcement.

 

 

[simple1]

21 minutes ago, halloween said:

I've heard of humanitarian programs, have nothing against them where they belong, in their own country. As there are many more Germans than immigrants, so far at least, I'm quite sure your statistics are correct. Should we look at crimes per head of each?

 

Had the planned attacks against the football stadium and aircraft not been detected (at the expense of a great deal of police time and money) then that position would have been reversed very rapidly. AFAIK there is only one group that requires constant monitoring to stop such activities - guess which?

If you're only are really concerned about Islamists, you obviously have not taken on-board warning from security agencies of other extremist groups, especially the extreme right, which is folly. Or perhaps underlines the truthfulness of your political leaning.

Edited August 1, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

Just now, simple1 said:

Extreme right wing?

A bird needs two to fly. But if it helps you to label people who disagree, go ahead, because you can't counter logical argument any other way.

 

BTW lifelong union member, often as delegate.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, halloween said:

A bird needs two to fly. But if it helps you to label people who disagree, go ahead, because you can't counter logical argument any other way.

 

BTW lifelong union member, often as delegate.

Which union now, the United Patriots Front?

[simple1]

16 minutes ago, halloween said:

A bird needs two to fly. But if it helps you to label people who disagree, go ahead, because you can't counter logical argument any other way.

 

BTW lifelong union member, often as delegate.

Your clique have repeatedly falsely accused me of being a supporter of Islamist terrorism - you think you guys hold the high ground??? And no, extremist right ideology ("logical" - ) or indeed any political / religious extremism  does not earn any respect from me.

 

Really have to stop now - bye...

Edited August 1, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Your clique have repeatedly falsely accused me of being a supporter of Islamist terrorism - you think you guys hold the high ground??? And no, extremist right ideology or indeed any political / religious extremism  does not earn any respect from me.

I certainly haven't accused you of supporting terrorism, but you do support Islamists, which is where islamic terrorism originates. While individual muslims are not accountable for each terrorist act, they continue to maintain the extreme religious teachings which lead to it, and to crimes against women who don't obey muslim moral codes.

[simple1]

43 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

An Iraqi KURD ,says it all terrorist or criminal ,if he had not been allowed into the country there would have not been a problem Muslim terrorist or criminal , your still dead .

Same applies to any other group. Unless you advocate a total ban on all transnational movement - stop the nonsense

[simple1]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

I certainly haven't accused you of supporting terrorism, but you do support Islamists, which is where islamic terrorism originates. While individual muslims are not accountable for each terrorist act, they continue to maintain the extreme religious teachings which lead to it, and to crimes against women who don't obey muslim moral codes.

Can't let this lie go by. I have never expressed support for Islamists. Yes I agree adherents to Salifi and other conservative Islamic ideology spawns violence and oppression, as do other extremist ideologies such as the far right

 

Your politics finally truthfully exposed.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Can't let this lie go by. I have never expressed support for Islamists. Yes I agree adherents to Salifi and other ultra conservative Islamic ideology spawns violence and oppression, as do other extremist ideologies such as the far right.

 

Your politics finally truthfully exposed.

 

 

I used islamists as equivalent to muslims. I have never advocated violence against muslims, with the exception of terrorists, I just see no need for others to put up with their religious views because it benefits THEM at our expense. Again, I would happily offer aid to those in need in their own country, because I can see what has happened and is happening in countries that offered them shelter.

 

You are coming dangerously close to flaming.

[halloween]

14 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

 

Your politics finally truthfully exposed.

 

 

When you are so far on the left, everything look right wing.

[7by7]

 

9 hours ago, halloween said:

used islamists as equivalent to muslims.

 It is true that all Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists; far from it!

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 It is true that all Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists; far from it!

 

I think what some posters are saying (and to a degree, this reflects a public sentiment) is that telling the difference is not intuitive. Or, alternatively, that they are unwilling to invest the effort telling the difference. Now, before getting excited about the latter - one may ask if there's something to it, rather than opting for the usual wide brush condemnations.

 

People, in general, are averse to changes in their way of life. All the more so when such changes are rushed, go against long held views and seem to going on regardless of perceived public sentiment. Adding an element of perceived threat (in this case, violence and crime) doesn't do a whole lot to ease such apprehensions.

 

Can't say that all the policies taken in the West (and more specifically, Europe) were well thought out with regard to tackling such issues.

[7by7]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think what some posters are saying (and to a degree, this reflects a public sentiment) is that telling the difference is not intuitive. Or, alternatively, that they are unwilling to invest the effort telling the difference. Now, before getting excited about the latter - one may ask if there's something to it, rather than opting for the usual wide brush condemnations.

 Your alternative is the most likely; certainly among certain members of this forum.

 

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

People, in general, are averse to changes in their way of life. All the more so when such changes are rushed, go against long held views and seem to going on regardless of perceived public sentiment. Adding an element of perceived threat (in this case, violence and crime) doesn't do a whole lot to ease such apprehensions.

Speaking for the UK, it is probably true that the way of life of many British people has been changed by mass immigration. There are certainly far more curry houses, kebab shops etc. than there were when i was growing up in the 1960s!

 

But that is not what you meant; is it.

 

Originally immigrants to the UK from India, Pakistan, the West indies etc., and I have no reason to suspect it's any different in Germany or any other western country, came at the invitation of governments and employers to fill gaps in the labour market.

 

They, their descendants and the more recent immigrants who have joined them may follow a different religion, may dress differently; but how does this make them a threat?

 

This is not to deny that there is a threat, at the moment from Islamist terrorists. But as has been proven time and time again in many topics the actions and atrocities committed by these have been always been roundly condemned by the Muslim communities in the countries where they occur and worldwide.

 

Indeed, it is that very Muslim community which often provides the security services with the intelligence they need to at best prevent the atrocity occurring, at worst apprehend the perpetrators afterwards, those who are not suicide attackers of course. 

 

I live in a town with a significant Muslim population; but it is not they that people are wary of. It's the white alcoholics and druggies who hang around the town centre during the day, and the white youths, male and female, who have drunk themselves into often violent arguments with anyone who 'looks at them funny' from early evening onwards.

 

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

Can't say that all the policies taken in the West (and more specifically, Europe) were well thought out with regard to tackling such issues.

So what would you suggest?

 

Remember that most immigrants, Muslims included, are as appalled by and against the terrorists and other extremists as you and I.

 

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Replace Calcutta (or, if you wish, Kolkata), with a "proper" Muslim city of similar parameters. I don't necessarily agree with the poster you replied to (indeed, most times I find his views repulsive), but on the other hand, not much appreciation for deflections. These won't solve any issues, not even the ones you are loath to address.

You may consider correcting completely ignorant comments to be a deflection; that is up to you. But I prefer facts to prejudice. I guess there may be some small city somewhere in the Muslim world where half the population has moved to Europe; but I doubt it.

 

BTW, unfortunately roobaa01 and those who liked his post are not alone in their ignorance:  Europeans greatly overestimate Muslim population, poll shows

 

Tell me, what issues am I loath to address?

 

It can't be Islamic terrorism; I've addressed that many times.

 

It can't be the so called 'Islamification of Europe:' addressed that many times, too.

 

You've got plenty of time to come up with something, work calls so I have to sign off now; probably until Thursday. But I look forward to reading and responding to your answer.

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Your alternative is the most likely; certainly among certain members of this forum.

 

Speaking for the UK, it is probably true that the way of life of many British people has been changed by mass immigration. There are certainly far more curry houses, kebab shops etc. than there were when i was growing up in the 1960s!

 

But that is not what you meant; is it.

 

Originally immigrants to the UK from India, Pakistan, the West indies etc., and I have no reason to suspect it's any different in Germany or any other western country, came at the invitation of governments and employers to fill gaps in the labour market.

 

They, their descendants and the more recent immigrants who have joined them may follow a different religion, may dress differently; but how does this make them a threat?

 

This is not to deny that there is a threat, at the moment from Islamist terrorists. But as has been proven time and time again in many topics the actions and atrocities committed by these have been always been roundly condemned by the Muslim communities in the countries where they occur and worldwide.

 

Indeed, it is that very Muslim community which often provides the security services with the intelligence they need to at best prevent the atrocity occurring, at worst apprehend the perpetrators afterwards, those who are not suicide attackers of course. 

 

I live in a town with a significant Muslim population; but it is not they that people are wary of. It's the white alcoholics and druggies who hang around the town centre during the day, and the white youths, male and female, who have drunk themselves into often violent arguments with anyone who 'looks at them funny' from early evening onwards.

 

So what would you suggest?

 

Remember that most immigrants, Muslims included, are as appalled by and against the terrorists and other extremists as you and I.

 

You may consider correcting completely ignorant comments to be a deflection; that is up to you. But I prefer facts to prejudice. I guess there may be some small city somewhere in the Muslim world where half the population has moved to Europe; but I doubt it.

 

BTW, unfortunately roobaa01 and those who liked his post are not alone in their ignorance:  Europeans greatly overestimate Muslim population, poll shows

 

Tell me, what issues am I loath to address?

 

It can't be Islamic terrorism; I've addressed that many times.

 

It can't be the so called 'Islamification of Europe:' addressed that many times, too.

 

You've got plenty of time to come up with something, work calls so I have to sign off now; probably until Thursday. But I look forward to reading and responding to your answer.

 

 

 

 

See you're back to the quoting practices which makes replying to your posts cumbersome, and serve to muddy the waters. Oh well...

let's see how long this one lasts....

 

As expected, you jumped right in with that wide brush - well done. Of course, nothing to actually address the point - how would an average person to know who's who? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the apprehension based on generalizations? Mind, I'm not saying that's a good thing - just that this is how people often react and think. Bashing them ain't gonna change much.

 

What I meant is what I meant. People, generally speaking, do not take well to abrupt changes, especially if these are perceived in  a negative manner. Not too complicated, and no real need to heap too many interpretations on that. I'd wish you wouldn't turn each and every topic to a discussion on things in the UK, past and present, but do not hold my hopes high.

 

So after the usual rose tainted "historical review" there's a one liner (if that) acknowledging an issue. Not that this is expanded upon, as the obfuscation mode kicks in. 

 

Condemnations (which are not quite what you habitually make of them) are not an answer. As far as alleviating fears and suspicions their effect is limited. It usually comes after something horrible happened, it doesn't last, and there are always those not going along with the program praising such actions. What you consider "proof", is nothing of the sort, and is mostly irrelevant to the issue even if it was otherwise. And no, you do not have to re-post all them tired links and pics. Same goes for the nonsense (and it's exactly that - was addressed on many previous topics) about Muslim communities aiding authorities. Again, not quite as presented, and irrelevant to the issue. Your personal experiences and views are your own, and doubt they could be even taken as representative of all those living in your town. Regardless, there are plenty of posters presenting alternate experiences and views, which you usually dismiss  offhand.

 

On the off chance you don't get it - when people's way of life comes under perceived threat (which could be anything perceived in a negative manner), rational arguments don't always cut it. All the more so, when these arguments originate from authorities and from parties deemed untrustworthy.

 

As for suggestion - authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted. Not to say that anything should be put to a referendum or that all policies are destined to be popular. But refusing to address public sentiment, bashing anyone who takes a different view and adopting a faux moral high-ground are not really helpful. Better information, less ambiguity/moralizing when addressing issues, and moving at slower pace are.

 

Notably, the only comment you can come up with is another irrelevant harping on a faux point. Should this be taken as an indication that you do not see any issues with how things are/were handled?

 

 

Coming to the last bit...

 

I have actually spent a while in Kolkata, same goes for other cities of similar conditions. As said, I doubt the point was about the specific city per se, and more to do with the poverty associated with it.  Europeans overestimating Muslim population (or perhaps, immigration figures) relates directly to the issues discussed above. It is a pity that you seem to be unable to discuss any of it without regularly resorting to tarring the views of those not agreeing with you.

 

If you consider half a line admitting there is a problem, then a deluge or words attempting to explain it away or touch on anything but, that's not really much of a discussion. Your stance on "Islamic Terrorism" amounts a series of "arguments" aimed at minimizing the issue, or disassociating it from Muslims and Islam. Again, not much room for discussion there.

 

 

Should be enough material here for you to go down multiple secondary points, while dodging the original issues raised. Here we go again...