This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Pinpointing Europe's Social Unrest Hot-Spots
Following the ongoing rioting in until-now-calm Sweden, we thought it interesting to revisit the increasing chance of more broad-based social unrest in Europe. With the summer rapidly approaching, austerity still heavy in the air (well fauxsterity at least), there is a massive and growing divide not only between core and peripheral nations' youth unemployment but also within a nation. For instance, while Greece tops the overall youth unemployment level in Europe, 4 of the Top 5 regions (some with youth unemployment levels of over 70%) are from Spain. As lip-service is paid to addressing this pressing issue by the French and Germans (who themselves are increasingly at loggerheads over policy), as Bloomberg's Niraj Shah notes, the chasm between the rich and poor in Europe continues to gap ever wider.
»
- 15035 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Long rubber bullet and riot gear manufacturers...
Nah, long belgian caterers!
Maybe we could build a bridge from Mexico to Germany and introduce the Germans to their new cheap labor source.
A bridge from Mexico to Germany would surely boost GDP ... just like building a Death Star!
On the other hand, there are plenty of people from Eastern Europe that work pretty cheap - no real need for a bridge.
If you let the third world poor flood in as "asylum seekers" aka invaders like the muslims, this is going to happen. They cannot create jobs for their own youth. This is happening in all the western countries thanks to the european bankster families.
Greek hoes are self-employed
Right, becuase there are no "poor white folks", fucking stupid. By the way, if the people of color outnumber whites 10 to 1, why the fuck are they called "minorities" again? The progressive language is meant to decieve your lying eyes, don't use it.
Well in Germany you don't even have the freedom to be a hooker, they are as regulated as any other business, so every Blowjob comes with VAT here, I don't know what's more disgusting getting fucked by a total stranger or paying taxes on it, and what does that make the Government? The Biggest PIMP ever?
The BIGGEST PIMP EVER!
Now are we talking about Krugwhore, Bernankscum, or Obamastooge?
+ 3
I think there is total clarity in this VAT situation: Only one of these parties is honest about what they'll do for you, when and for how long. Only one assures 'satisfaction', rather than 'promises'.
London has also become one:
Video: Woolwich Attack' Man Killed in Terror-Attack London
Many are starting to realize that Muslims and non-Muslims simply can not share the same land. And to anyone who thinks there will ever be sharia law in the U.S.: FUCK YOU!!!!
I'd argue that they can if they lived in an honest society with an honest government. The west has become politcally correct and morally corrupt. Remember those governments and media are controlled by corporations that profit from "divide and conquer".
Borders between different ethnic groups are always needed
http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.html
Some studies that prove that homogenity leads to peace and diversity ends in bloodshed
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_...
Of course! How's that multi-culturalism working out for everybody?
Sure, let the armed cultural conflict begin. I'm sure that will end well for all of us. Idiots! The Oligarchs are laughing all the way to the bank.
The Oligarchs installed multi-culturalism, so they will be the first to be dispatched. They could kill the internet today but it is way too late. The cat is out of the bag.
Will you please educate yourself so you don't look stupid:
"In The Culture of Critique and other writings I have developed the view that Jews and the organized Jewish community were a critical necessary condition for the rise of multiculturalism in the West. In Chapter 7, on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I focused mainly on the U.S., but also had brief sections on England, Canada, Australia (greatly elaborated recently in TOO by Brenton Sanderson), and France.
One question I often get is about the role of Jews in Sweden and other European countries with relatively few Jews. Now there has been a translation from Swedish of an article, "How and why Sweden became multicultural," that summarizes academic writing on the Jewish role in making Sweden into a multicultural society. This article should be read in its entirety, but some salient points:
The ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article "The Immigration problem in Sweden" in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter ("Daily News"). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books. …
Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. …
It was the conservative Rightist Party who first embraced the idea of ??cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent."
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/the-jewish-origins-of-multiculturalism-in-sweden/
Ok. I'll read your book if you read While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer and Menace in Europe by Claire Berlinski. Europe moved toward multiculturalism to assuage their "white guilt". They deliberately "siloed" the immigrants in separate communities, usually in the suburbs, and made no requirement to learn the native language or to assimilate in any way. So they ended up with increasingly hostile immigrant populations living completely off the largesse of the state who lacked the language and socio/cultural skills, and most important, the need or desire to assimilate and become self-supporting and inpedendent. Why does that sound so familiar?
Whose "white guilt"?
The same white guilt for imaginary misdeeds that we are now supposed to feel because being white allegedly confers advantage and is un-fair. It's all the rage at American universities and colleges these days: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340608/wisconsin-university-joins-c...
I would have put a "sarc" warning next to the word in my original post but the Europeans really did buy into the concept. Again, read Bruce Bawer and Claire Berlinksi's books.
The essential question is who promoted this "white guilt". Why would Europeans feel "white guilt" when tens of millions of them lost their lives in WWI and WWII? "White guilt" was a creation of the jew supremacists (that some of the usual goy idiots and collaborators bought into) to advance their schemes.
I looked into one of your books and I saw that the author blames "political correctness", well, that is just whacking at the branches-the important issue is where did "political correctness" come from!?!
It came from jew supremacism working through the Frankfurt School: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf
Bruce Bawer - Jew
Claire Berlinski - Patsy married to German Jew
Hmm...wonder who is promoting this 'white guilt' thing you speak of.....
Ooooh, Randy writes a book so he gets to call others stupid. How do you know that by "oligarch" we didn't mean Jew Supremacist? You don't, so fuck off.
Now you look more stupid.
You and me right here right now, Randy. This is FIGHT CLUB!
Ok, who are these "oligarchs" who "installed multi-culturalism"?
Again, you choose to ignore the issue of corporations who benefit from the unrest and control the government. Keep whistling past that graveyard...
All those poor and uneducated immigrants were allowed in because corporations where demanding it in order to lower their manpower costs. Certainly nobody that wasn't an employer was asking for more foreigners to come live in their countries.
Political Correctness and anti-Racism laws were just tools that were developed to muffle free discussion when the problems from "bringing in tons of people that have no intention to adjust to our culture" and the associated "hate from the locals that lost their jobs to immigrants" started popping-up.
The blame for all this should be placed at the door of those who cause this problem in the first place: corporate fat cats and their bought-for political right-hands. Yet they still control the propaganda tools and continue to shape the public discourse so as to blame the immigrants or the powerless local populace.
No, they were allowed in because no one else would take their shitty jobs for the lower than shitty pay they offered - and also because there were just not enough people for all those jobs while the economies expanded (thanks first and foremost to screwing immigrants' original countries through shady deals and political corruption).
And some studies say you can't fix stupid.
About 1400 years of history beg to differ. Some people do not want to live under the tyranny of sharia and islam. Islam is like an Arabic Scientology. Carry on.
For Christ's sake Fred. First political tribal bullshit, now religious tribal bullshit. You continue to be part of the problem.
Thanks, tyranny is tryanny. Disarm the people and divide and conquer becomes very easy and very porfittable.
yawn. Freddie, you are again conflating 1400 years of history and one bloody billion people into your little prejudices. of course you are not alone in the comment section, today. visit a small sample of a dozen countries where Sharia and Islam are common and you'll see that there are vast differences in application of both categories
you remind me of this late friend of mine that hated Jews - my greeting was "Hi, have you encountered one, yet?" - he never did in his whole life
which just reminds me that xenophobia is imho genetic, and in my estimation 10% are born with it
They aren't prejudices. They are a posteriori judgments. While we're talking about inherited behavioural traits, why don't we talk about differences in freqiencies of inherited behavioural traits between human populations, eh?
They are prejudices because extrapolate to all Muslims from the behaviour of a small segment of Muslims which is "denouced" again and again in media and yet does not represent the majority of Muslims.
Arabs and Poshtuns (who seem to have the majority of the troublemakers) are not even close to the majority of Muslims. For starters, the most Muslims live in Indonesia, then there are all kinds of modern and large muslim countries such as Turkey and Iran (Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians, descendants of one of the great civilizations of ancient times) and yet none of those nations ever seems to produce suicide bombers.
In fact, if you dig things up a little, you will find that the by far most extremist and xenophobic version of Islam is Wahabism (which amongst other things preachers that non-believers should become believers of be killed). Wahabism is spread by that great American ally, Saudi Arabia, which uses their billions from oil to open Islamic Schools all over the world (most notably, Pakistan, another American ally) spreading their hate-filled interpretation of Islam. The overwelming majority of real terrorist attacks can be traced back to people who have been groomed by Wahabist imans.
The so-called terrorist attacks in places like Afghanistan are no such things: they are acts or Resistance against and occupying army, just like the French did against the Germans occupiers during WWII.
@Acet,
Hence, is the Fascist US foreign policy taken from a page of The British Empire which re installed the Wahabi's back into power after the fall dof the Ottomen Empire. Wahabi's are today The House of Saudi Scum.
heretic! reading your comment could induce readers to think about how Wahabi leaders provide both oil for consumption and targets for imperial escapades into moar oil-rich countries, including Mujahedeens fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and Wahabi agents first delivering Stinger rockets to them and then setting up Al-Quaeda...
Bingo! We have a winner. Tell'm what's he's won Johnny.
An all expense paid trip to The State Department / CIA who arm, fund and train through Turkey, NATO and Central Asia the exact same AL CIA duh terrorists they claim to be protecting us from.
Hello Acet,
You are correct in your assumption that some of us lump all muslems into the extremist group. I personally know many muslems that consider themsleves "not a very good muslem". They would rather play soccer with the kids or watch dancing with the stars than prey 5 times a day. I think the probelm stems from them aligning theselves with a religion/political system that espouses violence and subugation for the infidel. In other words, Alah has told them to kill or convert all non muslems. The first thing a human would do if they wanted to live with other humans peacefully is reject the notion of killing and converting.
The Quran Surah Al-Tawba 9:4 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Don't bother, muslim is the new black (literally).
Wrong. The predispositions of their race aside, the essence of their relgion of Islam stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the essence of everything Western Europeans have traditionally meant by the word moral , bar the romanticising of some deluded 19th century orientalists. I'd argue that there can be no such thing as an 'honest society' with an 'honest government' that is also an Islamic society and an Islamic goverment. History knows only absolutism and subservience from them, and what can you expect from a people who follow a religion whose basis is complete and utter surrender of the human being to the authority of 'Allah'.
are you aware how strongly libertarian Islam actually is? yes, subservience to God. but also a strong attachment to markets, many religious advices on how to get rid of unjust governments and provisions about how to live where no government is present
Do you even realise how utterly ridiculous you sound in your attempts to paint Islam in hues favourable to the eyes of free men?
There is nothing 'libertarian' about removing an 'unjust' government while one is yet under the yoke of a tyrannical religious ideology and defining justice by that very same abomination. By the way, the Koran and the various Islamic sacred texts never use the word 'just', unless you want to tell me that they were penned by Englishmen.
explain to me the existence of libertarian muslims, then. or muslim anarchists. I have met both kinds, Englishmen
(for fairness's sake I have to admit that I do confuse libertarians and anarchists, from time to time - in my eyes they are both extreme liberals - I'm using their definitions and those of like-minded Christians agreeing with them)
You can string all sorts of words together in this lovely English language to make up whatever nonsensical terms you like. A 'libertarian muslim' makes as much sense as a 'Catholic communist'. I'm sure both are 'possible', but that won't alter the fact that the Weltanschauung underlying each of these political philosophies is diametrically opposite to that of the juxtaposed religion's theology. And I'd suggest 'muslim anarchists' need their heads checked. Like David Myatt. Anarchism seems to me little more than a self-indulgent tantrum against anything that is tradition. I've met some of the most obnoxious and authoritarian personalities I've ever come across amongst so-called 'anarchists' that belong to men who are the farthest thing from free.
Well I am neither of those four things.
well, Italy, for example, is full of Catholic Communists, or was, not long ago
but since you pose the "I'm neither of those four things" in a thread consisting of my starting one saying that Islam and Libertarianism are compatible and your reply just saying that they aren't, please do define for me what free is for you
can it be that your Weltanschauung seems to entail that most people make somehow sense in their belief structure? My experience is a bit different...
"favourable to the eyes of free men": like who? people who fight for freedom of religion? people who fight for the separation of state and religion? is a devout theist of any religion unfree? If I refrain from doing something because of my religion, does it make me unfree?
careful where you thread
I'm not going to engage in the sophistry of some Socratic word-spinning with you. Freedom begins with an internal recognition of the essential spiritual autonomy of oneself and every other human being. If you don't know what freedom means or what it is to be a free man, a concept utterly foreing to the Semitic peoples in whose mouths the doctrines of Islam were first uttered, then I will suggest you aren't half as 'European' as you imagine yourself to be.
This isn't about theism or devotion. It's about a very specific ideology of subjection of the human - body, soul and spirit - to a cosmic tyrant.
Keep muddying the waters with bits of filthy straw men. This has nothing to do with refraining from an action, but with complete subjection of the self to 'Allah' and a belief that de facto treats human beings as nothing more than the cattle of its 'God'.
Oh please, genius.
Why can't I up arrow your posts?
because he starts with italics. he often does, I don't know if on purpose or not, anyway this is a known issue with this site
I posed questions, you see them as strawmen. fine, you are not the first here in ZH that sees my way of arguing as such
nevertheless, do you care to explain your ad-homs?
(deleted)
Leben, I tried to up arrow you but for some reason it won't take. You are exactly correct. Absent the discovery of massive amounts of oil under their feet most majority Muslim countries would still be living as though it was the 7th century. That's what happens when you merge religious life with political life and base both on the delusional rantings of a paranoid, homicidal pedophile. It's too late for Europe, as unless the native population starts popping out babies at an accelerated rate, which is highly unlikely given the pervasiveness of nihilism in Europe, they will have been demographically conquered by 2050. The question now is will we learn from their mistakes?
Bravo! We tried to up vote Leben as well. He must have knocked it out of the park.
"most majority Muslim countries"? most of them have no oil - anyway, irrelevant, this is more genuinely interesting:
"pervasiveness of nihilism in Europe" don't know, reading ZH gives me the impression that nihilism is way more spread in the US. are you sure you don't mean atheism? ain't the same thing
Nihilism is defined as the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. People who are nihilists tend not to reproduce, leading to demographic extinctiion. Atheism simply means that one does not believe in God, and does not imply the rejection of moral principles or a belief that life is meaningless.
what I meant is: why do you think that europeans are more nihilistic than Americans in this century? coupled with: note ZH's nihilism
If you're talking about the US, then the answer is an emphatic NO.
The reason goes beyond cheap labor and votes for DummyCrats.
If enough Mexicans become US citizens then the demand for greater integration with Mexico will become harder to defeat. Integration with Canada was easy due to our cultural simularities. Total integration with Mexico has been rather difficult for the elites to pull off due to American white intransigence.
But, you bring in 40 to 60 million Mexican's and the political landscape changes. It also helps that whites in the US are being marginalized due to 3rd world immigration.
And, US politicians are working behind the scenes with Mexican politicians to move forward with what's colloquially known as the North American Union (NAU). So, in the near future look forward to more NAU references from the media as they attempt to brainwash the sheeple into accepting the demise of US sovereignty (US dollar) and the rise of NAU sovereignty (the Amero, or whatever they want to call it).
yet I understand Mexicans have strong family values - they would be "natural" conservatives on many social issues
if the US would not have a FPTP voting system, naturalized Mexicans would give a very interesting shift in the political landscape
speaking of USD and Mexican Peso: ZH does probably not mention it, but the IMF is gushing whenever it writes something about the Mexican Central Bank
an evil thought for you: what if in a near future Americans discover the price stability... of the Peso?
When governments took sides based on religion (in the middle ages), different faiths couldn't live together either, but once freedom of religion was enshrined in the bill of rights in America, different faiths had no problem living side by side because they had no reason to fear each other (at least in the USA). So it is with all aspects of life......I'd be willing to wager that in a minimalist government (or non-government) society, muslims, christians, black, white, rich, poor etc people would find a way to get along just fine....never underestimate the power of fear to turn good people into savages.....
Read the Koran and then get back to us. Devout Muslims believe every word of it is the indisputable truth. We are screwed unless we wake up and defend our freedoms and our culture.
madame, did you read the Koran? Care to pick a verse out of it? I've met devout Christians that believed every word of the Bible as indisputable truth, btw. how do you judge them?
Yes, I have read the Koran, in translation of course. Here is a verse that provides the rationale for yesterday's atrocity: 8:12 "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
I can cite many more if you would like. I myself am an atheist, but I respect others' right to practice their religion as long as their practice of their religion does not infringe on the right of others, both believers and non-believers. There is only one religion that urges it's adherents to kill those who believe differently---Islam. There is no comparable dictate from contemporary Christianity.
the "Spoils of War"? you have to read the whole surah, not just that part, and you have to understand the context of it (the Battle of Badr). The surah in it's whole is about what is permissible in war and what not - and the part you are citing it's according to the Koran God talking to Angels, not to men. It actually begins with "Remember when thy Lord inspired the Angels with this message..." and goes on with the rest...
the meaning is that according to Islam in the Battle of Badr the Angels fought on the same side as the faithful, striking the heads of the enemy (poetic for impairing their mental capacities) and striking off every fingertip of them (poetic for incapacitating their use of weapons)
of course this part is taken often out of context by many, both muslims and not, but again, it's an instruction to angels, not to men/faithfuls
Angels striking the enemy is all in all comparable with the Bible's God striking whole cities or flooding the world
Here is the tally from The Religion of Peace for just the past two days. (I rest my case)
2013.05.22 (Moqur, Afghanistan) - A suicide bomber detonates at a busy market, wiping out four bystanders.
2013.05.22 (London, UK) - An off-duty soldier is hacked to death in the name of Allah by two Muslims.
2013.05.21 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - Holy warriors send razor-sharp shrapnel into patrons of a cattle market, taking out at least five.
2013.05.21 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Six people bleed to death when Mujahideen set off a bomb outside a cafe.
2013.05.21 (Abu Ghraib, Iraq) - Eleven people at a mosque bleed out following a bombing by Religion of Peace rivals.
2013.05.21 (Quetta, Pakistan) - A Sunni police officer deliberately kills a fellow officer for being a Shiite.
madame, I can't follow you. Are you asking for an answer in form of a list of villages and cities bombed since Churchill advised to keep those territories "pacified" with Air Squadrons instead of Infantry? Or one in form of how many partecipate to violence compared to their total numbers? Please don't think I'm suggesting that I'm blameless - I'm trying to suggest that we all aren't
If I had to make a projection on violence going forward, I would say that the muslim population percentage would be a better predictor than the level of income inequality.
Bingo. It isn't a mystery why, either. The Koran is pretty clear about what to do with unbelievers: forcibly convert them, or kill them.
It's happening all over the middle east and africa, right now. Christians are being harrassed, murdered and driven out of their homes.
Funny how it doesn't make the news much. Some lone madman shoots up a theater or a school, and they won't shut up about it for weeks. But an entire region full of madmen burning, raping, and killing innocent Christians by the thousands isn't "news", I guess.
.. so is the Talmud
Buckaroo ... I guess you haven't read the latest manual ... it's "open season" on Christians and their morality.
Ever wonder why such animosity against God and gold? Because both are a restraint on man's evil excesses. One in the moral realm, the other in the monetary realm
I got down ticked?
Was it the moral or monetary reference that ticked you off?
I neither up nor down ticked you. Not that 2 Down is a big deal, after all the Up ticks you got. Don't be so sensitive.
But I can imagine that if a person is an Agnostic or Atheist, that they simply disagreed with your premise that a (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) "God" needs to enter the equation of 'morality'. If so, then I think that they are being a bit too sensitive -- even if they are right. Cheers.
Kirk - my second comment was a 'tongue-in-cheek' one. I guess I should have put a smiley face or something on it.
"The bloody borders of Islam" Wherever a Muslim country borders with a non-Muslim country, the blood flows.
also, whenever brits or yanks or the chosen people smell a profit, bombs go off.
In this instance the RELIGION aspect is being OVERBLOWN, and the limp-wristed-wankers would actually be better served by their habitual political over-correctness. Hacking people to death is non-denominational is Nigeria -- the Christians, Muslims, and Cultists all do it to each other and to the police, as well as the farmers to the ranchers, and the lynch mobs to the accused.
The Brits are just having some difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they are becoming a proper banana republic.
True, but it seems to be universal to Islamic countries.
how many have you visited?
One, two, three ... four. If you want to include France, five.
It would help if the English had some sort of national identity left, which they could assimilate immigrants into, instead of the soggy biscuit that they try to pass off as culture.
The relativism that all cultures are equal and should be equally relevant and welcome in all places is lunacy, Without community there is no strength in numbers -- and unfortunately the only community in England that these machetephiles seem to have been welcomed in was a jihadist community - and one that the UK leadership are too stupid or weak to expel or destroy, and that community had use for their continental predilection for hacking adversaries to pieces- since the majority of Muslim cultures outside of black Africa place a premium on proficient severance of head or limb.
You are right, killing is indeed non-denominational. But there is a religion where killing unbelievers is a core part of the religion's ideology. Killing is not only justified, but it is honored and encouraged. That religion is called Islam.
now let me guess: who started more wars and who killed more of the other side? Christians or Muslims? (I'm starting to like this article)
So you're going to spin the Crusades as a war of aggression by Christians now, are you? Or perhaps blame the recent decades of conflict in the Middle East on nations that haven't been Christian for at least as long?
Tell me, why do leftists always argue that the killings of communist revolutions and the murders of 'fascism' are incomparable because the former are accidental to bad people while the gas chambers are the logical conclusion of the latter's ideology? I'll leave you to figure it out.
But, you know, it's irrelevant. Foreign devils are waging a war upon Europe's holy soil and you're arguing morality. What a typical emasculated modern you are. You see, as much as I loathe the essential sentiment of his religion, I can still respect aspects of a Mohammedan's ethos. He has a sense of honour. He is a worthy foe. He has balls. Your kind, on the other hand, I can't respect at all.
strange, I thought that the Crusades were undeniably wars of aggression... and I see that you continue with ad-homs
anyway, I have no way to prove here that this "typical emasculated modern" is no stranger to wars (or military service in general, which is voluntary on your island, and so more likely something you haven't experienced) - and sick of it
interestingly, you seem to see morality as the hallmark of the shy - this strikes me as even stranger, then all respectable soldiers I've met do mull over the morality of their actions - personal and collective
what strikes me as even stranger is this "Foreign devils are waging a war upon Europe's holy soil", then it's the perfect mirror image of what Al Quaeda was saying about NATO troops in Saudia Arabia - and I thought you weren't posing a religious stance
thanks, but I don't need your respect, or appreciacion of my Honour, balls or scars
According to the eye-witness who called the police, it took them 20 minutes to arrive at the scene. Meanwhile, the two Nigerian Islamic nutters (allegedly) killed the victim with knives and a machete.
What the government and MSM will never go near is to admit that if Brits were lawfully armed, someone would have shot the two nutters and the young soldier would probably be alive today.
A crowd of ten sufficiently angry, decent people would be enough to send these peons to meet their virgins...
British sheep? You sir are a true optimist.
I'm not sure I'd approach a hyped-up Nigerian Islamic nutter wielding a machete. Would you?
What am I approaching him with? What are my assets?
Just "anger" according to TeamDepends. Nothing more. No other assets.
And let's not ignore that a machete can be thrown.....
Yes, but faster than a lead round?
Depends upon the distance and whether your weapon is drawn and ready to fire.
Within short distances a person with knife can move and stab a victim before they can draw their weapon and defend themselves.
This is standard training in all police departments.
"Myth: You can pull a gun and shoot a knife attacker before he can kill you if he's at least 20 feet away.
Fact: If the knife combatant is wearing a vest and already has the knife quietly drawn, he can kill 95% of even the top gun combat experts. Reason: in closing the distance, halfway there, your option to shoot to the head is gone or diminished. If you got even briefly stuck in clothing in your draw, had to chamber or take a safety off, had to set a trigger (eg. either mentally, or on a revolver), you'll be dead. If you got a shot to his vest and he took your throat out, you lose. If you are a police officer and not trained in immediate head shots, you die. If your shot does not immediately sever his spine or motor cortex (very unlikely in a fast draw/shoot situation), he is VERY LIKELY NOT to miss your eyes or throat, as a knife is FAR more accurate and certain, in it's range, than a gun. The more highly trained you are with a gun the more danger you're in. First: Mozambique will waste two shots center mass and you'll be dead before you can get to the head shot. Second: "Highly trained" means you're constantly worried about the legal ramifications of shooting someone who is unarmed. If the knife thug screamed "I'm unarmed" and charged you, your external carotid, subclavian, throat or eyes will be severed by the time you decide you can shoot. Worst of all: a gun might tempt you to stand your ground, when the safest option was to get the hell out of there!"
source
according to the legend that was the reason why American officers involved in the Spanish-American War (or, in this case, it's subset the Philippines-American War) asked for what became the famous Colt 45: they wanted to have more stopping power against an insurgent (why didn't they call them terrorists?) with a knife. here some photos of the legendary "peacemakers"
see coments from Pure Evil.
Also, there's every likelyhood that an armed citizen could have discreetly pulled his weapon and shot the two nutters before they saw what he was doing. Other people were around and quite a few distractions.
Are you not angered by the gruesome slaying of innocents?
No, I've become desensitized after the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan drone wars. Let's not forget what happened in Tunisia, Libya, and is now going on in Syria.
Plus all the violence on TV and in the movies and video games have made my lust for blood grow exponentially.
I'm told that NFL football players banging their heads together is horrendous, but bombing weddings and killing children as collateral damage when going after jihadist's is normal.
Just ask Barack.
Absolutely. When God is on your side there is nothing you can't accomplish and here come the down votes. Are you afraid of death?
I think you grossly underestimate the risk of injury or death to anybody who played the role of a good samaritan in this situation. These two Nigerian Islamic nutters clearly had a death wish (evidenced by the fact they waited around for the police to arrive - after hacking the young soldier to death and partially decapitating him in public - for a confrontation with them). They were wielding a machete which can be thrown and/or waved about to seriously injure others and one of them apparently had a gun.
This is not comparable to being in a hijacked airliner where if you do nothing, you're probably going to die anyway. This is an issue of willingly risking your own life by intervening to save another person's life, or doing nothing and waiting for the armed police to arrive.
All I'm saying is that if Brits were lawfully armed, someone would have brought this madness to an end before the soldier was hacked to death.
Yes, I am afraid of death. Most people are in my experience.
Watch out for guys with meat cleavers.
Good thing those Brits don't allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise...
Is it true that first-responders and police on patrol (beat cops) don't carry firearms either? Certainly this cannot be true, I don't care how docile your sheep are, that would be insane.
Some are further along the road of insanity than others
(Note I said "of" not "to")
First it's pressure cookers. Now it's meat cleavers.
Watch for it. Next they will consider all citizens with kitchens in their houses as terrorists.
Only specially trained Armed Police carry firearms, beat cops don't carry firearms.
There is almost no gun crime and a miniscule number of cases of people "accidentally shot" by police in the UK.
Well then, with a 20 minute or more response time, that certainly is bullish for macette/knife wielding thugs. Congrats.
yet how many of those cases happen? I'm sorry, but you have to pick a different country than the UK if you want to explain that safety is only by arming everyone. I'd stick with the 2nd on ideological grounds (which are imho fine) instead of looking for a safety rationale, then Old Blighty is a terribly safe and mostly unarmed nation
But what is rate of violent crime with sharp and blunt objects over in England, and what is the porkers' defense againt such weapons?
Long Japan Equity
Michael Woodford, who made a name as one of the world's most senior corporate executives to turn whistle-blower after the Olympus scandal in 2011, has warned Chinese business chiefs to be wary of investing in Japan.
Woodford told the South China Morning Post that only full control of an asset would give investors access to the information they would need to avoid becoming embroiled in an accounting fraud like the US$1.7 billion scandal he uncovered as president and chief executive of Japanese camera, optics and medical equipment maker Olympus.
"The [business] culture in Japan is not to expose or criticise, and just maintain the status quo," said Woodford, who was fired by Olympus shortly after he was named the top executive of the company before exposing the fraud and generating headlines worldwide.
Chinese firms betting on a turnaround in the world's No 3 economy have stepped up investments in Japan, often through mergers and acquisitions of Japanese assets or joint ventures with domestic partners.
China's top computer maker Lenovo has acquired assets from NEC, Japan's electronic industry leader, and Haier Group bought Sanyo's white goods business.
Earlier this year, Japanese media reported that NEC was in talks to sell its struggling mobile phone business to Lenovo, which has ambitions to replicate the success of Apple and Samsung in the smartphone market.
"If you can control the asset, which is usually not an easy thing to do in Japan, it may be better. If it is just the minority stake, you have to be much more cautious," said Woodford, speaking on the sidelines of the annual conference of the CFA Institute in Singapore.
I was in Freiburg, Germany 20+ years ago; they have an old univeristy there. It's on the edge of black forest. Seem nice then. What happened.
According to the graphic, they have low youth unemployment.
Kinskian,
Thanks, missread the chart. Freiburg is an old town; going back to 1400?. T he have diverted some mountian spring that flow thru town. Probably the nices good size town in all of Germany.
The problem for Germany is their robust economy sticks out like a sore thumb to the resentful onlooking member states. You can win yet still lose in the ill-conceived EU.
I'll be watching you; The Police. Great song with meaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH_YbBHVF4g
Elitist = Psychopath
No one like to wake up one morning and realize that they have been working all of their life for the benefit of psychopaths.
Wrong. I did wake up. That is why I only work for myself. I cannot identify Psychopaths that are evil.
Where is France in this? Redraw the maginot line.
France was on strike the day the data was to be submitted.
I know the U.S. is way behind in this regard, but will you people in the Southern Periphery get the riots going already!?!?
What a load of shit from the Tylers, trying to conflate what is happening in Sweden, and has happened in France and England (virulent foregin parasites runnign amok), with the unrest in Greece (financial collapse by corporate socialism).
Apropos Sweden, its funny how nobody mentions that majority of "the foreign parasites running amok" are second generation immigrants that have been unloaded into a Stockholm ghetto upon arrival and then raised through state's regular indoctrination channels. I have talked to many first generation immigrants about this and they are simply disgusted by the primitivism, as am I...
Unlike in the cases of Breivik and previously Lasermannen which were labeled extreme right-wingers and turned into media sensationalism, now Swedish propaganda whores are suddenly afraid. Well, it has to do with yiddish being one of Sweden's official languages.
More on Swedish digital propaganda machine
I am in CT. This is another utopian state that should get a Swedish treatment.
The Connecticut House of Representatives has passed a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.
Lawmakers debated for more than seven hours on the bill and made several amendments before finally taking a vote.
The bill, which passed by a 74-55 vote, would allow undocumented residents of Connecticut to obtain a driver's license.
So, now they're documented!
Now they're in a computer where the IRS can look 'em up.
And, CT can check their Insurance coverage.
This is a small step in the right direction.
Poor young subsidise the wealthy old, most Europe public-sector pension worth more than $1 million.
Social unrest? Is that slang for ‘Divide and conquer’? Yes it iz.
Fight!
Given those stats, I think the economic takeaway is: Get a job in southern Germany, and use the 5-6 weeks of annual vacation to have a cheap vacation in Italy or Spain.
Which is what the Germans are already doing in droves. Except that now they can snap up cheap R/E that many Brits bought but now can't afford. U2 Britus? Achtung Baby!
What a piece of crap are those "statistics"? Tübingen? Freiburg? These are two cities which mainly consist of universities (and not much else) so I would exepct most people between 20 and 24 which are living there not to be "unemployed" because they are bloody students.