The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 436

Berlin terrorist attack -- Poland's ethnic homogeneity a true blessing


Ironside 53 | 12,470
19 Sep 2017 #361
The decision was agreed

1. First of all PO gov a day before election had no right to make such a serious commitment.
2. That agreement can be and should be nullified if it put in jeopardy stability of the Polish state and safety of its denizens. Those considerations trump all others issues.

German or French elites can as well tell their people they don't care about them at all and they are only pawns for them. Hopefully that isn't a case in Poland.

EU can jump a lake.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #362
1. First of all PO gov a day before election had no right to make such a serious commitment.

They had every right to make such a decision. You're always banging on about the right of PiS to do things, so PO had exactly the same right.

2. That agreement can be and should be nullified if it put in jeopardy stability of the Polish state and safety of its denizens.

That's just meaningless commie-speak with no basis in reality.
Ironside 53 | 12,470
19 Sep 2017 #363
That's just meaningless commie-speak with no basis in reality.@ delphiandomine

No that is the reason of a sate to exist in the first place - to protect its citizens. If that function cease to exist there is no need for a gov at all. Commie? Are you crazy?

There is no consent of Polish citizens to take in even a one of those rape...'refugees'. Forcing it on people against their will without their consensus is a sign of a totalitarian state or tyranny.

They had every right to make such a decision

No they didn't - they are a cloud of clowns.
G (undercover)
19 Sep 2017 #364
They had every right to make such a decision.

And PiS flushed their "decision" down the closet, with vast majority of citizens cheering in the background. Democracy at work. You fascists might get turned on talking (since 2 years) about "penalties" and such but we all know that fwcking big nothing is going to happen.
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
19 Sep 2017 #365
You fascists might get turned on talking

HaHa you think PiS is anyway near facism, one day when im gone (Hopefully) proper facism might get back into power then you might get a proper taste.

I can tell you are not Polish, Poland does not have any significant facist following nor marxist commie following, understandable given our history.

Welcome to the new world order where middle of the road consevatives are badged as fascists.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #366
PiS are not fascists in the slightest. They're simply a continuation of the PZPR, which was very much about national communism.
Tacitus 2 | 1,378
19 Sep 2017 #367
First of all PO gov a day before election had no right to make such a serious commitment.

1. Democratically elected government are elected for the full time of their term, of course they had the right to make such decisions.

2. We have (soon) 27 democratically elected governments in the EU. If we were to postpone decisions whenever an election looms, the EU would get even less done.

3. Supranational organizations like the EU only work with consistency. You can't have a new government possibly challenge every decision made by their predecessor, especially if the decision would have been made anyway.

4. PiS has no ground to attack the legitimacy of the decision. The rules of the EU plainly state that decisions made by a qualified majority are binding for every member state. If Poland has no desire to follow simple rules like this, it should consider if it has any future in the EU.
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
19 Sep 2017 #368
PiS are not fascists in the slightest.

Wow delph much respect, They are more in tune with JózefPiłsudski and the Polish socialist party, tough but fair to those in need. hence 500plus and the move to universal halthcare for all and improving Polands security.
gumishu 13 | 6,134
19 Sep 2017 #369
If Poland has no desire to follow simple rules..., it should consider if it has any future in the EU.

what if most European countries vote that Poland should abandon coal in a span of a year - should we abide? - because you know climate change?

remark to mods and the admin: te nowe reguły odnośnie cytowania ( zwłaszcza ten drakoński limit który często nie pozwala zacytować trzech niedługich kluczowych zdań) są PO- PiER- DO-LO - NE
G (undercover)
19 Sep 2017 #370
2. We have (soon) 27 democratically elected governments in the EU. If we were to postpone decisions

First of all "you" should never even touch this issue. Immigration policy is not the 4th Reich business.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #371
It is if all the member states agree that it is.

You seem unable to understand that an agreement was made, and that the agreement is legally binding.
Ironside 53 | 12,470
19 Sep 2017 #372
The rules of the EU

The rules of the EU are conveniently abandon oft if it is in interest of Germany or France and then no one talk about it. It can be seen many times. So don't talk about rules - there are no rules.

By the way I don't want Poland in the EU - I said it very clear. THE EU right now means Germany rule.
dolnoslask 6 | 2,946
19 Sep 2017 #373
The rules of the EU are conveniently abandon oft if it is in interest of Germany or France

Yep hence after years of frustration Brexit has ocured. there you have it.
Ironside 53 | 12,470
19 Sep 2017 #374
You seem unable to understand that an agreement was made, and that the agreement is legally binding.

Oh shut up! Poland cannot endanger security of it citizens just to uphold some agreement. Also because no one can 100% distinguish between a Syrian refugee, an illegal economic migrant and a Muslim extremist - we can flash this agreement down the toiled. Poland agreed to take in Syrian refugees. Not anyone that floated into Europe.

The last point - those people don't want to come to Poland. They want Germany as Merkel invited them, so they should keep them . End off.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #375
Poland cannot endanger security of it citizens just to uphold some agreement.

Polish citizens are at much more danger from drunken Polish drivers, as witnessed by the amount of deaths every year on the roads as a result of drink driving.

Also because no one can 100% distinguish between a Syrian refugee, an illegal economic migrant and a Muslim extremist - we can flash this agreement down the toiled.

Why? It's easy enough - don't take men aged between 14-30, or even easier, just take women and children. Syrians are easy to pick out as they speak quite a distinctive variety of Arabic, and of course other migrants shouldn't be accepted.

Mind you, imagine if the UK had also said that it was impossible to distinguish in 1945 between "Polish refugees, illegal migrants and Communist extremists" and refused to give refuge to Poles? What then?

The last point - those people don't want to come to Poland. They want Germany as Merkel invited them, so they should keep them .

So do the common sense thing: put them in housing near the Polish border and give them a map and free train tickets to any station in Poland. Voila. The EU is handing out 10,000 Euro for each migrant, so spend a couple of thousand on that and pocket the rest. Job done, after all, it's not Poland's job to prevent anyone from leaving.
mafketis 36 | 10,815
19 Sep 2017 #376
Syrians are easy to pick out as they speak quite a distinctive variety of Arabic

Virtually the same as Lebanon but the point stands. One problem was that Germany forbade translators from conveying this type of of information so they couldn't say "He says he's from Syria but his accent is Iraqi" .

don't take men aged between 14-30

As long as those making the decisions don't just take the migrant's word for them and do physiological checking (pretty precise) that sounds like a good idea.

Aslo not allowing for family reunification (so that big family's can't send their most dispensable member and if he establishes a beachhead follow along).
spiritus 69 | 651
19 Sep 2017 #377
Simple

Yes you are.

Can you or Jon tell me what are the "rules" concerning member states having to accept migrants ?
G (undercover)
19 Sep 2017 #378
Gerries said so and others were terrorized to say "Ja wohl". Have the "rules". Look how these folks don't even pretend anymore that it's about "helping refugees", it's about "obeying the rules" now. The worst thing here, the whole "crisis" was manufactured in order to force more "rules" upon member states - by Gerries/EUnuchs. Imagine what these madmen will come up with next.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #379
Can you or Jon tell me what are the "rules" concerning member states having to accept migrants ?

So, the European Commission proposed that migrants should be distributed throughout the EU to take the pressure off Greece and Italy. The member states agreed to this, which made it legally binding. Once an agreement is made, it can't be reversed - otherwise every member state would reverse their position on something as soon as it didn't suit them.

Nothing more complicated than that. Poland agreed to something, and is now legally bound to it.

Virtually the same as Lebanon but the point stands. One problem was that Germany forbade translators from conveying this type of of information so they couldn't say "He says he's from Syria but his accent is Iraqi" .

Yes, it's really odd that Germany did that sort of thing. Austria was interrogating them on the border to establish their origin, including the use of Syrian translators to make sure that they really were from Syria and not from somewhere else.

As long as. Aslo not allowing for family reunification

Yes, absolutely. From what I can see, family reunification should only be permitted if the entire family agrees that they will return as soon as the conflict ends, and it certainly shouldn't be allowed unless it's a single family member reuniting with the rest of the family - for instance, the father being allowed to come to be with his wife and kids. Certainly any bollocks involving a single 19 year old then bringing the entire family over - hell no.

For me, there's no reason not to offer genuine assistance to those in need, but that help should be proportional. If a family comes here and they integrate well into society and prove that they can be an asset to the country, then of course they should be able to stay - but that should be decided against a set of strict, but fair criteria.
G (undercover)
19 Sep 2017 #380
Poland agreed to something, and is now legally bound to it.

That's the whole problem with fascism. If the previous gov agreed to re-open Auschwitz, according to this "logic" we should go on with it.

People responsible for the "migrant crisis" should be put against the wall, screw them and their "agreements".
Lyzko 45 | 9,286
19 Sep 2017 #381
Easy answers to complex problems don't help anyone, they're merely a quick fix which only serve to yield violent results!
The issue is to encourage those countries whose citizens flock to countries such as Germany, Poland, Sweden, Britain etc. to make their own countries so economically attractive to their citizens, that nobody would need to look abroad:-)

I've said this once before on this forum.
jon357 74 | 21,878
19 Sep 2017 #382
Nothing more complicated than that. Poland agreed to something, and is now legally bound to it.

It shows how little honour the current regime have and how little their word is worth
delphiandomine 88 | 18,177
19 Sep 2017 #383
That's the whole problem with fascism. If the previous gov agreed to re-open Auschwitz, according to this "logic" we should go on with it.

There's a difference between looking after some refugees and re-opening death camps.

People responsible for the "migrant crisis" should be put against the wall, screw them and their "agreements".

Russia's right there.
Lyzko 45 | 9,286
19 Sep 2017 #384
The very idea of re-opening death camps, albeit meant in some grotesque jest, is clearly as despicable as it is unthinkable.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
19 Sep 2017 #385
@Lyzko

That's exactly what trump said at the un today (your post regarding people developing their own countries so there's a not a flight of human capital)
Tacitus 2 | 1,378
19 Sep 2017 #386
Look how these folks don't even pretend anymore that it's about "helping refugees", it's about "obeying the rules" now.

You and your ilk have made it abundantly clear that you have no interest in helping those people, so why should we use an argument for which to acknowledge you lack the basic decency?

The worst thing here, the whole "crisis" was manufactured in order to force more "rules" upon member states

Those "rules" exist since the treaties of Nice/Lisboa, when it was decided that decisions could be made by qualified majorities. This is merely one of the many cases in which they are applied. The rest of your post is also of course nonsense.

Polish citizens are at much more danger from drunken Polish drivers, as witnessed by the amount of deaths every year on the roads as a result of drink driving.

Polish citizens are at much more danger from drunken Polish drivers, as witnessed by the amount of deaths every year on the roads as a result of drink driving.

Or they die through coal pollution, yet people support the decision of the Polish government to increase the use of coal. That might be economically sensible, but it will also kill possibly thousands over the years.

theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths

That's exactly what trump said at the un today (your post regarding people developing their own countries so there's a not a flight of human capital)

Now, if only he decided to do something about this. But I guess spending 700bn€ on military is more important... .
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
19 Sep 2017 #387
@Tacitus
Actually us pays for 22% of the un budget for things like refugee resettlement, famine eraditaion, un peacekeeping missions, etc.

Also the total us military budget is far larger than that. If you want peace gotta prepare for war

The way agencies use to identify if someone was in fact a refugee from Syria or another place is they'd show them a bunch of different currencies and have the person point out which is syrian in a short time frame. Then word spread and they no longer did that. Nonetheless the vast majority of migrants into Europe since 2015 are economic migrants, not refugees. Some sources give a figure as low as 3% of actual refugees out of all the migrants that came in.

@tacitus
If were going to talk about majorities deciding things we ought to point out that the vast majority of polls, 74% to be exact according to cbos, don't want migration from me and Africa. That's reason enough for our government not to take migrants from way different cultures in. Besides, we've done more than our fair share resetting both economic migrants and those escaping from war with the over 1 min Ukrainians taken in plus all the Georgians and Chechens. If Poland did decide to take in migrants you'd see massive demonstrations just like the one with 150k people in Warsaw.
Tacitus 2 | 1,378
20 Sep 2017 #388
As far as I know, there is still a substantial majority of Polish people who support Poland's EU membership. So a large number of people want to stay in the EU, but also want Poland to defy Bruessels. This is not how the EU works, and with good reason. Imagine any time a decision is made by all membership and those who feel disadvantaged by it would simply refuse to acknowledge it and cite public support, we would never get anything done.

Honestly, if the Polish people decide that they'd rather leave the EU than adhere to its' rules, I'd be fine with this. But they shouldn't expect that Warsaw could stay a member, take the structural funds and refuse to show any solidarity when other states need it. The EU refused to compromise over its' principles with the UK, and unlike Poland, the UK was both a net payer and highly important for European security. Poland is neither.

This is the same in any larger democracy. I assume that like in most countries, the central government in Warsaw has areas where it can make decisions that affect its' regions. The regions can probably challenge it on a legal level, but once the courts decide that the decision was lawful, they have to accept it.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
20 Sep 2017 #389
@Tacitus

Yes around 80 90% of poles support eu membership. No one said Poland has to leave eu or will be kicked out for not accepting migrants - neither Poland said they'll leave because of it nor did any eu senior politician threaten kicking Poland out. Furthermore their perceived threats on 'rule of law' have for now taken precedent over the migrant question. And even then they'd require a unanimous decision to strip Poland of voting rights which won't pass bc Hungary as well as other v4 members and eastern eu members will support Poland in this regard. A potential fine of 2 bil was discussed for not taking migrants which I'm sure poles would be fine with paying. That comes out to roughly 200 zloty a pole. Not a large sum to prevent a slippery slope and bring in certain peoples that have been responsible for the vast majority of terror attacks (like the one in London earlier this week- 5th attack this year there), rapes, rioting, burning police stations, trashing subways and parks, etc. If Poland were able to decide who comes in and vet them themselves it wouldn't be as much of a security issue but still the principle of slippery slope remains. As far as the 2 bil fine, better yet they can take the 2 bil out of the reparations from germany. They gae several submarines, military tech as well as lots of money for reparations to others, they ought to man up and do the same for Poland. Actually German and polish representatives are in the process of discussing this topic behind closed doors.

Also uk and Ireland have an opt out clause (treaty of lisbon) as it pertain to justice and home affairs. Poland should have asked for the same. So no, certain members are permitted to disregard certain eu rulings in some cases.
Dirk diggler 10 | 4,602
20 Sep 2017 #390
Poland is natos eastern flank and basically a buffer for the west. If Russia ever invaded Poland itd be devastated as it would turn into a battlefield. Nato troops would rush in so as to halt Russian advance into Germany and further. (Either that or they'd merely declare war and sit on their butt like they did in ww2 - most poles feel this way, esp those in the military, that's why home defense and paramilitary groups are growing like crazy and receiving funding training etc from the government and regulars). Furthermore it meets the 2% GDP mark of NATO which the vast majority of NATO members do not meet. In terms of military might, Poland is actually pretty powerful and the amount of hardware and troops they have is actually pretty close to Germany's despite being half the population. So no your assessment of Poland military contribution is incorrect.

Second poland was one of the few eu nations who's gdp grew during the recession. Our market is extremely competitive due to a highly skilled low cost labor force. Our economy ranks between 20 and 24th in terms of GDP depending on who's measuring it and their methodology and I believe somewhere around 6th 7th place in terms of eu. We have an excellent credit rating and low debt. While our economy is smaller in terms of nominal gdp than germanys, our growth rate is far higher and it'll probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. We've managed to have exponential growth since the 90s, keep inflation very low, and even our unemployment rate is now lower than even wealthier eu nations while our ease of doing business index ranking is getting better and better. All in all, while we may not have as large of a nominal gdp as France uk Germany etc, there's so many aspects make us more competitive than these countries. That's why you see so many companies building huge plants like Mercedes for example in my town.


Home / News / Berlin terrorist attack -- Poland's ethnic homogeneity a true blessing