[Rich]

There's a philosophical problem with that assertion. That it is impossible to roll a seven on a single die is not a fact about the world but a logical deduction from the nature of a die.

I presume you mean a six faced die where the sides are labelled by integers starting at 1 and increasing in steps of 1. I've definitely played games where I've rolled a 7.

[Potemkin]

I presume you mean a six faced die where the sides are labelled by integers starting at 1 and increasing in steps of 1. I've definitely played games where I've rolled a 7.

You play Dungeons and Dragons? NEEERRRRRDDD!!

[layman]

I do find it remarkable how people can quite easily shrug of a concern such as a refugee crisis when it doesn't affect them, however if the situation was reversed you can bet your bottom dollar they too would be a refugee looking for the best solution for their families. Don't get me wrong, I know what you are saying. A refugee should go to the first safe haven. And at first that is what happened. But Refugee camps were largely ignored and were impoverished. It wasn't until people started moving away from them into Europe did Merkel open up her boarders. More people came towards Germany because they were welcomed, and today Germany is asking for a fairer Refugee policy to keep xenophobic tendencies out.

You are conflating things here. You can have sympathy for individual refugees and accept you would do the same thing while still realizing ‘generous’ open door policies are destructive on the macro level. This is not a contradictory position.

A solution to collective global inaction should not be European collective action. Also, a solution to poor refugee facicities in designated camps need not be simply dolling them out in ‘quotas’ to western countrys. This conflates migration with the protection of refugees which is dangerous and unfair in the long run.

But what was she to do? Do like every other leader and banish them or give them refuge? She did the Morally right thing

No, not in either the long term or for the greater good. It only helped a few and many of those in Germany are not even happy there. This is because they are NOT the actual refugees for the most part. The worst of refugees didn’t make it that far. The refugees actually fleeing gunfire and sieges are in Lebanon or turkey. Only the richest and strongest made it to Europe and they tend to be either fakes of middle class Syrians from the Baathist strongholds.

Giving refuge just encourages more to pay people smugglers. This seems very hard for many to understand despite it being common sense.

There is an element of truth to say the rich/middle class migrants can afford to pay people smugglers to get into Germany and the poor remain in refugee camps. But I don't stand by you notion that she did anything to look good on television. She opened up her boarders because their was an influx of refugees coming into Europe. There is an argument to suggest she did this expecting other nations to follow suitp

Its not an element of truth it is common sense.

The very poorest and weakest do not flee the cities but have to remain and suffer.
The slightly stronger flee into internal displacement.
The slightly richer and stronger flee to neighbouring country.
The best off flee to Europe or the US after paying smugglers.

I question her intelligence is she really thought others would follow in such a policy. She is certainly appears to have been driven in part by emotion which is understandable. She is a good person just like you are.

[Atlantis]

Atlantis your narrative is contradictory. If you support this mass migration of people as a good thing then you think Germany is multicultural. Hence how can you claim Germany has done it's duty when in your mind there supposed to be no more "Germans" but just people living in a state that is called "Germany".

Try as hard as I may, I can't make sense of this. Anyways, accepting the right to asylum does not mean that I think "mass migration is a good thing."

As a migrant with a German passport I am in the fortunate position of being able to travel, live and work in more countries than the overwhelming majority of humans on this planet. Who am I to deny others what I take for granted? That doesn't mean that I approve of mass migration. Migration obviously needs to be controlled. But to want to stop migration completely in the age of globalization is a stupid fantasy no intelligent person would want to bother with even for a second.

Atlantis is a product of post-War Allied brainwashing.

Will you never tire of this silly rant? And me, I thought you were intelligent. Just goes to show how wrong one can be. You are the type of person to tell the Germans to get over the Nazi hangup to rub their noses in the Nazi shit the next moment. Even for a Brit that degree of hypocrisy must be embarrassing.

As for 'facts', both of us mostly rely on sources.

I have shown by facts and arguments that the Merkel-invited-narrative is false. You just keep on repeating the false narrative without replying to my arguments.

Talk was of a million a year but you changed your tune. This is fine and sensible but what is strange is that you wont even admit you changed your tune.

No, I haven't changed my tune, neither on the refugee crises nor on Brexit. And if you were honest you would admit it. I don't even have to check my old posts because what I'm saying is perfectly coherent.

You even denied the purpose of your 'we can do it' migrant thread you posted last year.

There is no such thread.

All 'facts' are ideological, Atlantis, ...

I guess you can spin out a whole mantra of that sort theoretical maxims, but do you have anything of substance to say that in any way relates to the refugee crisis? I have my doubts.

I do find it remarkable how people can quite easily shrug of a concern such as a refugee crisis when it doesn't affect them, however if the situation was reversed you can bet your bottom dollar they too would be a refugee looking for the best solution for their families. Don't get me wrong, I know what you are saying. A refugee should go to the first safe haven. And at first that is what happened. But Refugee camps were largely ignored and were impoverished. It wasn't until people started moving away from them into Europe did Merkel open up her boarders.

That is courageous of you to say in this forum or cynics. The fact is people in the West want the refugees to go out of sight so they are not inconvenienced by pictures of a "little bay washed up dead on their beach." The refugees know that the world will forget them and will even cut spending on refugee camps if they stay away from Europe. The hypocrisy of people in the West is impossible to bear.

More people came towards Germany because they were welcomed, and today Germany is asking for a fairer Refugee policy to keep xenophobic tendencies out.

The second part is not correct. Merkel/Germany has always said that there should be a fair burden sharing from the very beginning. Merkel (together with the Austrians) took the decision to let the refugees in that were piling up in Hungary, the Balkans and Greece under inhuman conditions. If she hadn't taken that decision, the whole world would have blasted Europe for being inhuman. Moreover, there was the real danger of conflicts in the Balkans flaring up again and of a breakdown of Schengen and the EU. Of course none of this is of any relevance to our resident bigots. On the contrary, the breakdown of the EU is the very thing they are rooting for (see Albert's thread about the 'dissolution of the EU').

The fact that they don't even have the decency to admit their true designs tells us all we need to know about these people.

Today Germany is asking for help to spread refugees to reverse the affects of her decision.

That again is part of the false narrative. She has always said that the refugees needed to be shared out. That has not changed. But there was no consensus in the EU about sharing the refugees. Still the refugees were there. Germany was the only country with the resources to take the refugees as an emergency measure until a consensus could be found. There is still no consensus. So how can anybody pretend that there was any other possible solution a year ago.

She said if she could go back in time she would do things differently.

No she did not say that. She said that mistakes were made. The mistake was made by the EU which failed to act in time to prevent the refugee crisis. That makes her one of the very few honest politicians in Europe today. However, the blame is on the whole of Europe not on her alone. In fact, I don't believe that during the 5 years of Greek debt crisis there could have been a consensus on altering the Dublin regulations or preempting the refugee crisis. Most politicians in Europe only act under pressure. And the pressure to act simply did not exist 2 years ago. Even today there is no consensus. So how can people claim that there was a different solution 2 years ago?

I agree that keeping refugees near their homelands is a good thing so they can return to build their homelands, but the Syrian conflict is not going to resolve itself anytime soon so this is mute on this occasion.

Keeping tens of millions of refugees in huge camps for generation is a recipe for disaster. But again to try and discuss with our professional bigots practical methods for addressing the refugees crisis is completely in vain. They are not interested in refugees, they are not interested in their own country or anything but their narcissistic little jerk-offs in this forum.

There is an argument to suggest she did this expecting other nations to follow suit

The dilemma is that everybody wants Germany to take a lead in solving Europe's problems (because nobody else can) but nobody wants Germany to be the leader. So what are they to do? The only way Germany can lead is by example. Which means in this case, take in refugees in the hope others will follow.

I think nobody could have predicted the vehemence with which this was turned into its opposite by the false narrative propagated by the Anglophone media and Eurospectics on the continent.

However she did have a strong public support at the time and has done the morally right thing.

Exactly, the 'welcome to refugees' was not an invitation to refugees (who were already in Europe) but a domestic message to Germans that racism would not be tolerated. That nearly 8 million people volunteered to help refugees in Germany is a fantastic mobilization of good will, in a society that is satiated with goods.

[B0ycey]

I presume you mean a six faced die where the sides are labelled by integers starting at 1 and increasing in steps of 1. I've definitely played games where I've rolled a 7.

LOL. You have me more than Potemkin and it's as shame for him he never thought of it. It could have used it as an example of 'not necessarily always correct' fact. However I don't agree logical deduction is different from fact. A fact is by its definition always correct. However political statements can be distorted to make a point on their opinion. The facts within the statement might be correct, however the way the fact is interpreted can have separate meaning. For example you can say (using myself as an example) 'A standard die has six sides' and that is correct However someone says 'A standard Dungeons and Dragons die has more than 6'. Both statements are fact and only interpretation is different. Ideology is an opinion and varies from person to person. You cannot say it is fact. However that is my opinion so by definition it is neither right or wrong. So I am in a pickle here. I still think I'm right though. lol.

[Atlantis]

Lol half of Germany is of migrant stock. That is crazy man. Where you get your information from?

I checked it:

Jeder Zweite in Deutschland mit Migrationshintergrund?

But even without checking, what I said is correct, which you would have known if you had read my post instead of just quoting a line out of context.

I'll explain it again: 14 million refugees after the war, 18 million East Germans, about 5 million guest workers, 1 million refugees from the Balkan wars, a few million East European refugees during the cold war, etc.

Most of these people have become 'good Germans'. Even if it is hard for you to understand, I wasn't talking about race. In my post, I explained to another member why Germany had a lot of experience with integrating refugees/migrants (irrespective of race), expressly pointing out that integrating people from former communist East Germany can be harder than integrating Syrians, for example.

Thus, a conservative estimate is that more than 40 millions had to be integrated into West Germany society. If you consider that the former refugees intermarry with the locals, you'll probably end up with more than 70% of the population that has a refugee/migrant in its family line. These are families that remember the hardship of having to leave their homeland.

PS: The 40 million doesn't even include the 18 million East Germans.

[Potemkin]

LOL. You have me more than Potemkin and it's as shame for him he never thought of it. It could have used it as an example of 'not necessarily always correct' fact. However I don't agree logical deduction is different from fact. A fact is by its definition always correct. However political statements can be distorted to make a point on their opinion. The facts within the statement might be correct, however the way the fact is interpreted can have separate meaning. For example you can say (using myself as an example) 'A standard die has six sides' and that is correct However someone says 'A standard Dungeons and Dragons die has more than 6'. Both statements are fact and only interpretation is different. Ideology is an opinion and varies from person to person. You cannot say it is fact. However that is my opinion so by definition it is neither right or wrong. So I am in a pickle here. I still think I'm right though. lol.

But I would submit that this merely demonstrates my point. To state that a standard die has only six faces numbered 1 to 6 in increments of 1 is to assert a fact about the world (a synthetic statement about the world), whereas to deduce from this that it is impossible to throw a 7 with that die is to make a logical deduction from facts about the world (an analytical statement about the world) rather than to state a fact about the world. Analytic statements about the world are always correct, by definition, whereas synthetic statements about the world may or may not be correct (e.g., some dice have more than six faces). Synthetic statements about the world are always inflected by theory and by ideology.

[Albert]

I checked it:

Jeder Zweite in Deutschland mit Migrationshintergrund?

But even without checking, what I said is correct, which you would have known if you had read my post instead of just quoting a line out of context.

I'll explain it again: 14 million refugees after the war, 18 million East Germans, about 5 million guest workers, 1 million refugees from the Balkan wars, a few million East European refugees during the cold war, etc.

Most of these people have become 'good Germans'. Even if it is hard for you to understand, I wasn't talking about race. In my post, I explained to another member why Germany had a lot of experience with integrating refugees/migrants (irrespective of race), expressly pointing out that integrating people from former communist East Germany can be harder than integrating Syrians, for example.

Thus, a conservative estimate is that more than 40 millions had to be integrated into West Germany society. If you consider that the former refugees intermarry with the locals, you'll probably end up with more than 70% of the population that has a refugee/migrant in its family line. These are families that remember the hardship of having to leave their homeland.

PS: The 40 million doesn't even include the 18 million East Germans.

Atlantis this is false. Why are you posting this? You article quotes an Irani immigrant who says this.

Even if it was true, why are you not horrified at it? There is no Germany at that point.

[Elyzabeth]

[quote="Atlantis"]No matter how deep the false narrative about Merkel having invited the refugees has become entrenched, it still remains false.

Merkel Says Germans Fulfill Refugee Duty, Now Time for EU to Act

I heard her and saw he on telly inviting all immigrants.... to all come to Germany !

How could that be " false " ?

She is singlehandedly responsible for endangering or destroying European culture !

God complex ?

[The Sabbaticus]

You are obviously impervious to the facts. I don't believe you are incapable of understanding the facts, you just don't want to understand because it doesn't fit into your ideology. Thus, there is no point in discussing because you are determined to hold onto the false narrative no matter how often it is explained to you that it is false.


Germany has a lot of experience with refugees. At least half the population is of migrant stock. The bombed out and impoverished rest Germany had to take in 14 million refugees after the war. The local authorities would come around look at the size of your apartment and decide how many refugees you had to take. There were millions more during the cold war who received asylum in Germany. During the Balkan wars, Germany again had to take in more than a million refugees from the Balkans. There were millions of guest worker from the South of Europe and from Turkey. And finally there were 18 million East Germans who had to be integrated. Compared to that, a million Syrians is nothing. At least they understand the market economy and want to work, if we would only let them. The real problem are the East Germans. The terrible heritage of the communist regime has still not healed.

Let's assume that you're factually accurate in the above. Do you know what a 'compound effect' is? You've even mentioned that these 18 million East German (immigrants) are still giving problems, despite the wall coming down in 1989.

So we've got 18 million East German (immigrants ), "14 million refugees after the war, about 5 million guest workers, 1 million refugees from the Balkan wars, a few million East European refugees during the cold war, etc."

And Merkel has just added close to 1.4 million illegal immigrants from various MENA countries in one year to this powderkeg of multicultural disharmony, and had proposed to add 1 million per year from the MENA region for the foreseeable future.

The compound effect would be what exactly, Atlantis? Creak, creak, gears springing into action.

[Albert]

How can people like Atlantis be so blind it just amazes me. I'm really am astonished. I mean seeing people like him so blindly believin in this crap especially after Cologne is beyond me.

[Decky]

I'll explain it again: 14 million refugees after the war, 18 million East Germans, about 5 million guest workers, 1 million refugees from the Balkan wars, a few million East European refugees during the cold war, etc.

East Germans are not foreigners to Germany you fool.

[B0ycey]

You are conflating things here. You can have sympathy for individual refugees and accept you would do the same thing while still realizing ‘generous’ open door policies are destructive on the macro level. This is not a contradictory position.

I have sympathy for refugees because I am human. It is not contradictive to believe nations need to do more for refugees while at the same time believing an open door policy is political suicide. I respect Merkel and think there are people on here who don't give her the respect she deserves. She showed humanity to refugees when no other EU leader in Europe did and she had the support of the German people at the time when she did. I'm not stupid. I know the pitfalls of mass migration within a short timeframe. I live in the UK. The UK is divided on this very issue. But this is how I see things. If I was a refugee who was in a poorly run refugee camp that was largely ignored, what would I do? Leave. Second. Do I believe that the solution to a refugee situation is to have millions of people in a bordering country when the reason for them being there is from a third party nation? No. Is it right one nation should have all the burden during a conflict that has little to do with them? No. And finally what do I think the correct solution to this problem is? Every nation within the UN should sign a treaty that agrees that they should take a quoted amount of refugees in regards to land mass and GDP. My opinions are not a contradictory position. They are a common sense approach to an important issue. Keeping my fingers in my ears while putting my head in the sand is not the answer. Passing off a problem and quoting the Geneva code is not the answer. Saying the UK doesn't need to stand by moral principles is not the answer. I have said it once on here and I'll say it again. Merkel is correct. More nations need to do more for the current refugee crisis.

[Donna]

How can people like Atlantis be so blind it just amazes me. I'm really am astonished. I mean seeing people like him so blindly believin in this crap especially after Cologne is beyond me.

I'll give Atlantis credit, the stakes are incredibly high and when this is happening in your own backyard, you want it to work out for the best and you don't want to really rock the boat, especially when the fallout could potentially reflect France's security situation. No doubt Germany's political class wants to use the country's economic power to micromanage the integration of migrants on an unprecedented scale.

But he is still wrong, of course. Turks, Syrians, et al. will never truly be German and eventually the social fabric will deteriorate as a result.

[layman]

She showed humanity to refugees when no other EU leader in Europe did

She did it all from an ivory tower. Did she actually invite any refugees into here own home? Did bob Geldof for that mater .. ? Its very easy to order other people to do ‘good things’. Anyway, I do think she is a nice person sure but I don’t respect her policy because it is counter productive.

I'm not stupid. I know the pitfalls of mass migration within a short timeframe.

Then you should see the error here. Google the situation in Sweden – the most liberal country in the world. If they cant make it work then how can anyone?

If I was a refugee who was in a poorly run refugee camp that was largely ignored, what would I do? Leave.

I like to think I would fight for my country if I was called up. However, if I didn’t support any side I would flee yes.

Every nation within the UN should sign a treaty that agrees that they should take a quoted amount of refugees in regards to land mass and GDP.

Defining a refugee is nearly impossible so any such approach will end up having quotas filled with migrants. Politcal assylum is totally out of control too. Nations like Bangladesh and Nigeria are filling up the system in the UK and other places so people in real trouble are left behind.

The true solution is extending the student visa system and then sending back educated people to rebuild and retrain the nations they came from. Simply emptying counties doesn’t work. When it comes to traditional refugees. That is people actually fleeing for their lives. They need to go to camps.

[B0ycey]

Defining a refugee is nearly impossible

No, Defining a refugee is easy. Stopping people from confusing them with economic migrants is nearly impossible.

[layman]

So what, you just ask them? ... No it isnt easy because it is conflated with both asylum seekers and people fleeing poverty. All three are conflated, not to mention people who are 'middle class' or even rich in their home nations.

By certain definitions there are probably over a billion people that need to be rehomed in the west according to this logic.

[Atlantis]

By certain definitions there are probably over a billion people that need to be rehomed in the west according to this logic.

As I said, there are about 65 millions that can properly be defined as "refugees" today, but if we don't address the issue of international inequality, the number of economic migrants could well be more than a billion in the not too distant future.

That is why Merkel is right to try and find a solution to the problem now, while it is still manageable (a million refugees in an EU of 500 million is peanuts). The solution can only be international cooperation within the UN, the EU or other international bodies. No nation can do it on its own. We have seen how difficult cooperation even among 28 countries can be. Therefore, we need to find workable solutions. In Europe, these solutions will include a range of measures including:

- reinforcing Schengen external borders
- preliminary processing of asylum seekers at the hotspots in Greece and Italy
- improved cooperation between member states
- enhanced exchange of information (police, intelligence, etc.)
- changing asylum laws to remove an incentive for economic migrants
- agreements with neighboring countries (Turkey, Egypt, etc.) to take back economic migrants
- agreements with source countries (Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.) to take back their nationals who don't qualify for political asylum

All of the above needs to be done. The current mini wave of refugees gives us the opportunity to put in place the means to deal with the tsunami of refugees that will hit us in a few years time. To stick our head into the sand and say the tsunami won't came is criminal neglect.

Simply saying that all refugees are economic migrants is false. Simply saying we won't take refugees, even if the dead bodies pile up in the Mediterranean, is not workable.

But what we need more than the peace-meal approach is a vision that will turn the problem into win for both sides:

- Instead of letting the US create more refugees by it's interventionist policies, the EU needs to take the lead (if need be with Russia, Assad, etc.) to pacify the region.

- Instead of letting the Chinese develop Africa, Europe needs to take the lead in developing Africa economically. European industry can shift low-wage manufacturing to Africa while keeping high-value manufacturing in Europe and at the same time develop African markets.

Germany is an exporting nation and depends on foreign markets. Therefore, Germans know that they depend on open borders and a proactive approach to people in the emerging and developing economies who aspire to a better life.

That is the only solution to the problem. The racist rantings we see in this forum are a useful as a hole in the knee.

The US military interventions have wasted 6 trillion USD, destabilized the ME, fanned terrorism, precipitated us into a global financial crisis, washed millions of refugees onto our shores, increased corruption, etc.

With a tiny fraction of that cost Europe can develop the whole of the ME and Africa and tremendously benefit both in economic and in security terms. We are in a position to turn a vicious cycle creating more misery into a virtuous cycle solving the refugee crisis and laying the foundation for our future prosperity. Merkel knows that.

[Albert]

Why do you need to develop other nations?

[Cookie Monster]

But I would submit that this merely demonstrates my point. To state that a standard die has only six faces numbered 1 to 6 in increments of 1 is to assert a fact about the world (a synthetic statement about the world), whereas to deduce from this that it is impossible to throw a 7 with that die is to make a logical deduction from facts about the world (an analytical statement about the world) rather than to state a fact about the world. Analytic statements about the world are always correct, by definition, whereas synthetic statements about the world may or may not be correct (e.g., some dice have more than six faces). Synthetic statements about the world are always inflected by theory and by ideology.

So I am wondering whether it is possible to have analytic statements about causality in social relations and human actions. The analysis of social relations and human actions is highly subjective, but would it be possible to isolate the causal relations in purely analytical statements? And, if so, would that be of any added value?