Maturin

Well, I take it non of you read the report then. I was genuinely interested in any of your thoughts as all of the posts following it are exactly the issue that it deals with. Now, I live in Europe. I have spent years living in 3 notable European countries, the UK, Spain and Sweden and I have travelled extensively around my continent. I see no Islamisation of Europe nor have I read any credible studies predicting that is Europe's future. I'm really not sure where you get your information from. You can post as many badly produced videos you want, until you point to some hard facts I won't be commenting on the laughable notion of the Islamisation of Europe! Don't forget, I don't need to prove to you that Europe is not becoming Islamified, you need to back up this mental notion before I'll dignify it with a reply. Really, you should read that report if you want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you would like to read this. If you disagree with it then at least you will be arguing from a more strengthend position as it is a report from the UN published by the UK Parliament on the mistreatment and misinformation contained in right-wing propaganda rags such as the Daily Mail and other media outlets. I've not read all of this particular report, only skimmed it just now, I know the subject and the source is unquestionable but if you genuinely don't understand something and are not just trying the dilution tactic, I'd be happy to go through it with you. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/81/81we83.htm

It's entirely your choice if you think this video illustrates potential problems. To me it looks like you're getting rather desperate to grab hold of an argument you've lost track of. Who are these people, what were the circumstances, what is this proving? If you feel this illustrates anything then please let us know what it is exactly and point to something that backs your statements up, regarding what you feel will be the impact of refugees. No need to post them directly, i'll search them out myself and show you where you're going wrong. All you've done here is post a nasty video with an inciting title. There is nothing in it that you have proved or shown to be true regarding refugees. I'm starting to think you're not so qualified to speak on behalf of your side of the fence beyond the level of "I don't want them over here, so there!"

OK then. Thanks for your input to the OP.

Cheers anyway but I'm not going to be downloading that. If you'd care to write it here then I'll consider it.

1) That's not what I said. Indeed it was a wordy post because I felt I needed to make it clear why I was not going to debate something in a paper that isn't deserving of the title. Maybe I should have made it wordier as it would appear you've totally misunderstood me, I have the suspicion that you're doing that purposefully - so I'll refer you to the point about not labouring to educate people that refuse to understand. 2) I've already addressed this in the previous reply. This time I'm 100% certain that you understand it as that is the section where most of the words were dedicated. 3) I said I was not going to quote you as it takes an incredible amount of time copying and pasting. The method I use is with two windows - one is open on what you've said and that is where I delete the part I'm not quoting (having then to refresh so the whole text is ready to do the same operation again for each subsequent quote), the other window is open with the area in which I type my text and copy and paste the selected quote. If writing your name is so important to you, or quoting you directly, when nobody else here has actually replied to e¡ther me or you, then do let me know if there is a faster way to quote, because... ...as can you see, I have not written your name because you have taken this thread off-topic, which I knew you were always going to do - so at this stage I'm not that bothered if you reply or not.

Sorry JojoGunne, I'm not going to dispute quotes. If the quote is directly referencing a fact then I might well do, depending on the source of the fact. The Daily Mail is not an entity I would even consider taking on their clickbait for just to read up on something in order to dispute it. For some reason you mentioned conspiracy theories and I regard that newspaper in much the same way as a right wing person would regard Alex Jones. Were I to quote him or one of his "facts" I'd be well prepared for someone to tell me to do one. Now, disputing what I say needs to run a little deeper than saying that you doubt whether what I said about the GC is actually true. It's a tried and tested tactic of people, who already know that their minds won't be changed, to mildly disagree with anything that doesn’t match their world view. For a lot of people on both sides of this argument that will be an incredible amount of things to mildly disagree on. This is a blocking technique that puts the person they have chosen to engage and "debate"* with on the back foot from the start as they will then have to back pedal all the time to deal with and correct gaps in the other person's supposed lack of knowledge, rather than the issue - opening up more lines of contention that the "unknowledgable" person can dispute and dilute further. As the issue becomes more diluted it will invariably lead to the person that is trying to educate the other slipping up on a, by this point, trivial piece of information, which for some reason will be claimed as a "victory" for the whole argument by the diluter. I don't think you are stupid, neither do I think you are incapable of conducting a modicum of research before you state something or disagree with things. So I will do you the courtesy of not questioning the validity of everything you write in an attempt to frustrate you so much that you give up. Where I do disagree with something you say, I will look into it, if you are using rational sources, research it for myself and tell you the why's and whatfors as to why you're incorrect. Soooo, - I have done my homework regarding the Geneva Convention, which is why I stated it. If you think I am incorrect then tell me why, if you have proof. *debate - That is of course ironic, as a refusal to even acknowledge the other person's argument can hardly be regarded as intelligent discourse, can it? Reference the paragraph I wrote about understanding why some Americans might be unsympathetic towards refugees - that's part of this thread, I'm not going to provide a link to it however. As an iteration to this, I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your understanding of irony, so I won't be using quote marks again unless their use is properly warranted.

It takes ages to write a reply using quotes so I won't bother doing it from now on unless the reply warrants it. The only thing that really stands out as worthy of reply there is WWIII. I mentioned that to show that we all have the potential to become refugees, and who will look after us if we have set such an uncompassionate example with current events. You turned that into some comment about America to the rescue, not relevant. My point was the old adage of doing unto others as you expect others to do unto you. Ah one more actually, not sure why I have to restate this again but here goes - ISIS are responsible for the massive surge in refugees that Europe is struggling to cope with. The situation that has led to ISIS can be traced back through the trail I've mentioned. Lots of countries in the Arab Spring suffered violence from either governments or rebels on the other side and that also created a comparatively small number of refugees. Egypt and Tunisia for example have not had their revolutions followed up by the overwhelming hammer blow of these ISIS fucknuts. Who knows, Assad might have put down the rebellion by now and there might be no refugees. It is not the Syrian civil war that caused the refugee crisis in the regions of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. I've turned in for the night so am not going to search and read through the Geneva Convention at this time! If you are on US time perhaps you can go through it and find some facts about that, or indeed anything I've stated, to prove me wrong. Opinion pieces in discredited newspapers do not, and should never, count!

I didn't say that Syria had oil that America and it's supporters were after. Iraq had the oil. Neither did I say that the West was responsible for the Arab Spring. That Iraqi borne ISIS have capitalised on that civil war and now control vast swaths of Syria is not being debated though? The people who profited from the slave trade and suffered under it are all long dead now. I'm confused why you're drawing that analogy to living refugees. We bear responsibility because we voted for the leaders that lied to us in order to pursue war for profit, how and why did you jump back 200 years to the slave trade? Syrian refugees have been fleeing ever since the civil war began, however, again the information is there if you care to find it, it has become a torrent of people in the last year because of ISIS. Nor did I mention anything about us bearing the responsibility for the Arab Spring. Not sure where you read that from in my text. This is a forum, not a history lesson, the history of the Middle East is a few short google clicks away. If you want to go through Ozi's post from about a month ago, he summarised it quite well. I won't spend time repeating it. Suffice it to say that all current issues can be traced back to imperial Europe and nascent imperial US policy. Woah there before you make this into a personal slanging match of the type that I think everyone is tired of by now. Triumph in this context is an ironic turn of phrase, simple as that. I have not implied anything, I have merely stated fact. Whether or not I am an expert on the Geneva Convention does not change its rules that countries have signed up to follow. As I wrote earlier, refugee status does not grant people citizenship status. They will find it as impossible to get jobs as they would in Turkey. However, their standard of living will be more than the basic tented accommodation that they could look forward to in that country - until the situation in their countries is reviewd and they are returned. It is rather ludicrous that you are making false assumptions on what I've written in an effort to discredit the Geneva Convention - through a debate with me on Camcaps! I do what I can actually. I learned a while ago, on here, not to give out too much personal information about what I do or who I am as the people I generally find myself arguing with like to take the smallest piece of information and use it to turn an original debate into a schoolyard slanging match to score childish points - destroying what could have been an interesting, adult, argument. So forgive me if I don't illustrate the things that I am doing about it (which I'll be the first to admit are insignificant compared to the scale of the problem but at least I'm trying). The OP wasn't about me - notice that I'm not asking you to tell me what you personally are doing about it. In World War III, I rather think the US will be one of the main actors from the get go, there's that thing called NATO you see. I would hardly say that the British commitment to NATO by ensuring that it continues to keep it's defence spending at the required 2% is taking things for granted, when other NATO countries are spending 1%, maybe less. A quick google confirms what I thought, that for an island of only 70 million people the UK is has the fifth highest defence budget. But, again, not sure why you chose to get into that here, or the ridiculous notion that people in Europe take the US for granted - feel free to start another thread on it though if it's something that's bugging you. This is the Daily Mail mate. Whilst it explains a lot to me about where you're coming from, if you believe the trash they post, I need to inform you that the paper has long been considered an absolute joke.

It is gonna happen I think. If you look at Russia moving troops into Syria right now to back Assad - well, that aint gonna end well.

We, as in the Western powers. Initially the Austro-Hungarian Empire, then the Turks, then the British, then the British and the French, then everyone that backed America in it's seach for oil - all of us. The rise and triumph of ISIS in Iraq, subsequently turning their attention to Syria, is the fault of Western f-ups and not finishing what they started in Iraq. Don't forget that the reason given to declare war on Iraq was that it had WMDs and was intending to use them imminently on Western targets - something that Bush and Blair outright lied about. Service men and women were sent to Iraq on this lie and pretty much destroyed the country - killing 1.5 million Iraqis. That country is fucked for the forseeable future. The troops were then pulled out so that the allies' leaders could declare a political victory. Whilst our soldiers were there, underequipped and undersupplied, the rules of engagment were changed, stopping them directly prosecuting known or potential enemy combatants, leaving these people free to set up what would become ISIS. I don't agree with your refugee/economic migrant assertion, no. A "lucrative situation" implies that they are economic migrants in search of new shores in which to practice their trade or technical expertise. There is no rule that states a refugee must apply for asylum in the first country that they arrive. Again this is from the Geneva convention. This is quite obviously to safeguard these people, who have nothing, from becoming dependant on a country neighbouring their own that does not want them or is not treating them humanely. They are legal refugees when they leave their country, when they arrive in Turkey, leave it and arrive in Greece. As refugees they have the right to transit through Europe and I'm not sure why that point is still being discussed. In the US I can well understand, to a degree, why there is little empathy for refugees. The US as it stands will never, ever, be invaded. Americans will never have to think about dropping everything to escape for their lives and livelihoods once war rolls up and swallows their towns. It is different in Europe. The next world war will be fought here just like the previous two. It's all very well us able-bodied men saying, when that happens I'll go down fighting, I'll fight em 'til I drop etc - but what about the people who can't? The women and children, old men and women, the fathers who would rather see their families safe than fight in someone else's war? (99% of wars are someone else's). When Europe is hit by war and European refugees need a country to help, who is going to assist after we set such an example as the past month. Where will their friends be?

Whilst they do not face death in Turkey, the also face no kind of life or basic human respect there either. Turkey is not an Arab country and they have been traditionally hostile toward Arab countries - which is actually why they should be commended for doing what they are, despite history. The camps there, whilst keeping the people alive, are slightly better than prisons - prisons with less basic amenities that is. I know what I would do if faced with the decison of spending an unknown number of years in the desert, with no opportunity and a hostile population. I'm pretty sure most people here would make the trip to Europe too if they were ever unlucky enough to have such a situation visited upon them. Here's a quote directly from this article: Adil is a 28-year-old mathematics teacher from Syria's Hasakeh province. He spent several months in Turkey before deciding he had to leave. He wound up swimming to Lesbos when the motor died on the boat he was in. As to why he didn't stay and build a life in Turkey, his emphatic reply is that he did try, but quickly found out that he wasn't allowed to. "The big problem for anyone in Syria, you live in Turkiya, Turkiya it's very bad," he says, using an Arabic pronunciation for the country. "You can't rent a house, 'cause you are from Syria. And [they] didn't give you anything to be legal in country in Turkiya." For Adil Mohammad and nearly 2 million other Syrians in Turkey, that's the core of the problem. Turkey doesn't allow non-Europeans to apply for asylum. Instead, they get "temporary protection" — very generous protection, given to vast numbers of people, but it never leads to legal status. Again it goes back to my point of what right do we have to utterly waste someone's life, sentencing them to sit in tents in the desert dependent on handouts, when we caused the situation and are able to help?

The thing is however that they are refugees and all European nations have signed the Geneva convention which gives them the responsibility to do their best to help these people. This is without going into the conversation regarding the moral responsibility to protect non combatants of countries that we have destroyed. Also remember that refugees are not granted citizenship automatically, they are different to asylum seekers. Someone with a refugee status has a limited number of years, in Sweden it's 3 years, that they can stay in their host country before the government will asses the conditions in their native country and arrange for them to return if the situation has improved. This situation has given the West the opportunity to put its money where its mouth is and show the world that it is as superior as some people think it is. How we treat vulnerable people, who have nothing, defines the character and worth of our civilization.

Here's a tip for you, the cerveceria on the corner of nou de la rambla and parallel is open for most of the night. If you get there late the owner will usually let you in if you knock the shutters. I can't remember what time the girls in Bagdad finish their shifts as I was always smashed by the time I got there, in the early hours anyway, but they usually go to the cerveceria for afterwork drinks to relax and if you're polite and not a dick you can start up regular conversations with them and maybe even get lucky (don't let on that you know their profession!)

You know, I saw only this post first and was just going to reply something along the lines of, "Yeah, I agree. Tell you what I'm prepared to let it lie if we both dial it back a bit." I shouldn't have scrolled up to see your longer post eh? But you know what Woody? Fuck it, I don't know how many times I have to tell you it's not worth it before I finally take my own advice. TBG fair enough because it was "fair enough". I've had many problems with the mods here who've exercised their authority in unequal ways at times, this was one of the first times that a decision was taken in the Maturin Vs The Fascists Saga that was explained in a fair manner so it's important to recognise it. You now accuse me of being childish then go and call me childish names (you do know that my screen name isn't my actual name right?) Remember what I said to you about calling me all the things that you actually are? I've said that many, many times to you. It's called projection, Woodworker, and all it's doing is showing people what a sad opinion you have of yourself. I'd never ban anyone for speaking their opinion if I was a moderator. Let me restate - I have never asked a mod to get anyone banned. You should note however that, since I started challenging people who are preaching hate, racism and white supremacy etc on this site, rules have now been formalised against such practices. This was something I took on on my own with a few infrequent messages of support, when you and all your buddies were laying into me. I took it and gave it back tenfold and this forum changed because of it. In anyone's book (except yours) that is a very good thing. Non thinkers and bigots like you are in the minority and getting smaller Woodworker and I serve to remind you just how lonely your road must actually be. This is why you hate me so much. I can live with that. Ciao.

Thanks for the translation. Totally agree. She's hardly on websites looking for and applying for her own job so she's no right to criticise! If they were married with kids then she'd have a point but right now it just sounds like she wants him to go and earn money for her. The dude needs to stop crying though! Unless it was for a death in the family but I doubt it!

Looks like she's going for it in the bedroom, from the thumbnails. Damn! come back to the living room Leora!

People were saying the same about Leora and Paul when they first started. She was the very definition of immature. Tears every week, an ambulance was called one time, stomping around the house - but they're still going.

No sorry, seems like I used a lot of words but didn't explain myself well enough! Unfortunately it's not a problem on our side as viewers - it's the hardware in the apartment that is causing the issue as it is being recorded then streamed. There's nothing we can do about it I'm afraid except write to RLC to get them to update their equipment - which we all know is unlikely they would do. Do try to keep your computer as close to the wifi router as possible though but as you've seen, everyone has this issue so it's definitely not your equipment!

Better make sure they hide they knives then!

Haha! That made me chuckle! You're welcome!

Ha! I don't think anyone’s tried it before, maybe there's a gap in the market!

It must be buffering. Think of it as the reverse process of when you click on a HD youtube video. If your connection is slow then the video will need to load the data (buffer) by a certain amount before it starts moving. On the cam side, if someone is still or moving slightly then that stream has not much data to read process and send out. Then if someone for example gets up and moves across the room, suddenly there is a lot of picture information to change so stream pauses whilst the buffer catches up. It'll then jump ahead again at some other quiet time in order to go back to a fully live stream. An example would be Carla when she's on camera 2 - this cam suffers the most from it in my experience. The sofa is quite far away from the cam, so when she's sat down diddling herself, only her hand is moving whilst the rest of the picture is static. So not much information to process and send - only her hand moving and general small body movements. When she stands up to go to the TV, suddenly her body will fill almost the whole screen, meaning that now the whole picture will need to be updated at whatever the refresh rate is - probably 15-20 times per second. It looks like RLC's hardware is dated and cannot do the calculations fast enough to provide a flicker-free stream. Of course, even taking this into account, there is no proof that the stream is actually 100% live. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was delayed by some minutes - that way if a tenant suddenly went on an axe-killing spree they would be able to shut the cams off before we saw them. But they didn't do that when that guy was beating the girl in Z&L's apartment so who knows.

That's actually pretty good. Shows that not all jokes about race have to have the minority as the butt.

You're so desperate to pretend the Karenkraft wasn't actually a guy pretending to be female in order to get weird sexual kicks from interacting with you, that you mention him whenever you get the chance. And for the record: he was a guy, he fucked you, but do carry on mentioning it whenever you can, please. Twat