Will this become a trend in europe soon or because they are christians, nobody will give a shit about them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3NBG2wpk2c
Realistic speaking, what are the odds of the ppl being so fed up with this islam bullshit that they will start to vote for more and more radical anti immigration parties?
Sauces to back up your claims are welcome.
Bump
>>56049798
Only in the West. I pray for Scandis but not sure about them, they're also not Christian anymore.
>>56051280
nice
>>56051395
If they are not christians, them let the burn.
>>56051280
What happened here? A patriot stole a flag from a patriot and got beaten up by fake police? What?
Explain pl0x
>>56051479
Patriots dont steal flags from others.
The one who stole was a liberal.
>>56051479
Leftist dick stole flag because lol you can't do anything about it.
They did sth about it, only guys with helmets were real police.
>>56049798
The general public might be up for more anti islamic/anti immigrant policies if it wasn't for the inevitable baggage that comes with it. UKIP are probbaly the tamest of the new right parties in Europe, and they've hit a barrier because most of their neo Thatcherite policies are vastly unpopular. What interest would the white working class have in lowering tax rates or privatising the NHS?
I also think most people are uncomfortable with their neighbours being portrayed as 'the enemy'. As much as 4chan may like to pretend otherwise, the vast majority of immigrant families have settled in reasonably well.
>>56051395
The problem is that if you are a 100% christian you WILL turn the other cheek.
Just look at how russian serfs were treated by the Czar until the revolution.
>>56051526
>>56051559
What was he doing? It seems like he was pretty patriotic by the way he started waving the flag around. And what was the protest about? Anti-EU?
>>56051597
It is still a fact that the number of muslims doubled in germany in the last ten years and that this shit creates tension and islamic terrorism.
We should finally turn to laicism and force people with a religion to hang it up on the wardrobe when they go outside their homes and churches.
>>56051597
"no"
and you?
>>56051610
He wasnt being patriotic.
He was just happy for "stealing that awful flag from that demoniac conservative nationalist".
And he deserved the beat up he got it.
>>56051597
Is not what we see in newspaper everyday.
It looks that muslims are fucking up the entire continent.
And now with this thing that France said, that if UK leave EU, they will allow immigrants to go to England....
I dont know, but the european way of life is being threatning by both Islam and this "leave and let live" mindset.
>>56049798
>Realistic speaking, what are the odds of the ppl being so fed up with this islam bullshit that they will start to vote for more and more radical anti immigration parties?
FN votes will keep rising but there's no room for more radical parties at the moment.
It was hard enough for the FN to stop looking like the literal nazi party and to start winning, it would just be fucking stupid to do something like that at this point.
What is this the edgy teenager party ? No the point is to be reasonable and have normal people's vote. Extremism is fine if you keep it to yourself but in politics it just makes you look bad.
>>56051707
>>56051597
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps&feature=youtu.be
I don't understand how you don't lock people with such posters up.
Police here cracks down rather fast on that.
>The child of course not.
>>56051610
I don't think he was waving it to be patriotic. It was probably more like "hey everyone, I stole their flag and they can't do anything about it!"
>>56051771
The problem with Bachelet in my view is that she is not just nationalist ( which is good) but she is a rampant socialist ( and that is bad).
I have no problem with her defending the french way of life.
But going full commie will end up fucking up with the economy and make her loose power really fast.
And when she does loose power, another party will use that to put their agenda in place. And their agenda may incluse rampant immigrancy.
>>56051718
>we see it in the newspapers
And who owns the newspapers you think? Someone with a vested interest in fucking up third world countries and forcing the West to accept millions of refugees and ending homogeneous societies effectively killing two birds with one stone?
>>56051896
> Someone with a vested interest in fucking up third world countries
Not receiving immigrants will not fuck up third world countries m8.
And third world countries are fucked up from the beginning.
>>56051823
I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of silencing people. Despite the memes, England is historically a nation which relies upon the idea of free speech. Can the same be said for Germany?
>>56052047
Not as much, I have to admit.
But saying "UK go to hell" and other shit as seen in the documentary I linked...
How DARE they.
Seriously.
The UK allows them a standard of living which is not remotely comparable to the average Pakistani's live and than THAT happens?
You will see later in the documentary that they get really angry if people "disrespect" Islam, even "moderates".
Most seem not to be able to accept that islam has its weak points.
>>56052047
If you go rallying for chrstianity and a bunch of muslins start to beat ppl up, this is not free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDT_3Aw0aFo
>>56052224
>The UK allows them a standard of living which is not remotely comparable to the average Pakistani's live and than THAT happens?
>You will see later in the documentary that they get really angry if people "disrespect" Islam, even "moderates".
>Most seem not to be able to accept that islam has its weak points.
You can't reason with idiots, but silencing them is no solution at all, and not just for moral reasons. If they don't want to be silenced, what then? Violence against them? That'll make things better. Its exactly what they want, too. They want a holy war, and wars have two sides.
Obviously allowing them to move here and not join regular society was a mistake, but thats too far gone now. Damage limitation is the main game now.
>>56052389
I still believe that people that have double citizenship, even if they are born here should be able to lose one if they fuck up badly.
>>56051889
>The problem with Bachelet in my view is that she is not just nationalist ( which is good) but she is a rampant socialist ( and that is bad).
And that surprises you ? Socialist policies are popular, this is just another way to gain more votes, in this case from the left.
>>56052502
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FUCKING
SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!
It is lol because they have taken control of a irrelevant low class neighborhood and they think they have taken control of the country because they never leave their shit neighborhood.
>>56052465
Oh I completely agree that citizenship is not something that is an automatic right regardless of previous convictions. ISIS fighters should have their citizenship revoked, major tax evaders should too.
>>56052224
Because they have nothing to be grateful for.
Why would a wolf be grateful to you if you let it into the henhouse?
>>56052697
I am unsure with the tax evader thing, it sounds good..but do you remember how many people in russia and china get locked up for "tax evasion"?
But yes, revoking citizenship in murder/terrorism cases sounds...okish.
Man I realise this is a slippery slope.
>>56052753
True, but it doesn't work for you either..does it?
All this ethnic mafias and general racial violence.
>>56052697
>>56052795
The problem with revoking citizenship is that it is not a decision that can be taken on the spot, it has to be included in the law and possibly in the Constitution, which is why it is such a heated debate - or at least that's what it is here.
>>56052795
>revoking citizenship in murder/terrorism cases sounds...okish
>okish
Elaborate.
>>56052869
You are talking about it?
Good!
Then we have hope here for that also, later.
What is the general consensus?
"No, he just killed a lot of innocent people!He is still a good boy!" ?
Or are people brave enough to be a bit harder?
We don't hear a lot about french (or dutch) news, recently in germany. I believe it might be because they are actually righter than ours and it would be a shame if people knew that...
>>56052918
In general I agree, but how can you prevent that from being applied to all kind of people?
Just look at the US and its patriot act.
▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ ▬▬
-ISLAM IS PEACE-
--ISLAM IS LOVE--
▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ ▬▬
>>56052977
>>56052918
I am personnally against it. I think the problem is the following :
They plan on introducing in the Constitution that someone who commits an act of terrorism can have its citizenship revoked. Ok, fine. But what is terrorism actually ? Is only for the retarded people who blow themselves and kill civilians in the name of whatever ? Or could it be that someone protesting against the current regime could be called a terrorism ?
Terrorism has actually a very large - and thus very shallow - meaning, and it's very dangerous to write it down in the Constitution, because what's written in it can not be erased, only amended - at least that's how it works here. So it has many flaws on a practical level.
On a purely moral level, it's pointless. Those people are fighting against the state and everything it represents, they don't care about citizenship, it's just a tool for them, and I've already talk about the practical aspect.
>>56053054
>>56053054
>>56053154
It still keeps them out easier and using ressources they should not have.
I agree though that it is hard.
>>56052977
(cont)
As for the general consensus, it's very divided. People in majority were in favour of the airstrike launched by the french military, and I think it's safe to assume there is a pro-russian feeling in the air, which does not necessarily mean the trend is shifting to anti-americanism. We're just fond of Russians, usually speaking, and never did harbor hostile feelings towards them.
I agree it gives them access to ressources, but I don't think it would deal them a strong enough blow to take that risk. As long as it implies the Constitution, I will remain against it, but that's only my opinion.
>>56053018
You cant, and there is no problem with that.
If you are a murder, why is Germany problem to take good care of you?
Kick them out and let them kill on their own country.
>>56053154
>Terrorism: any acts of violence perpetrate by a individual or a group of individuals against the State and/or citizens of said state for politic, religion or racial reasons.
There.
>>56053354
If they are foreigners i agree.
Bam, out with them.
>>56053354
Yeah, like I said, it can be intereprated in so many ways ... what if a protest is seen as an act of violence ? When the far right protest it is often seen as an act of violence towards the migrants.
If I join an anti-republic rally, nothing tells me I couldn't be associate with an "act of violence" "against the State" for "politic" reasons.
You see my point ? I'm not sure I'm explaining well enough.
>>56053054
>>56053539
Act of violence meants using force anon.
Protesting is no act of violence unless the protesters start to physically engage others or have disregard for private property.
Black Blocs for exmaple would be considered a Terrorist group. And they should.
>>56053777
I agree it shouldn't, but I worry it could be associated with violence. I think the words can always be interpreted and reinterpreted in many different ways.
I am very touchy when it comes to the Constitution though, so I'm biaised in this.
>>56053972
Lawyer?
>>56054033
Me ? No, not even close, just very patriotic, so I tried to learn a bit about constitutions, political legitimity and the likes. My knowledge in law is actually very restrained.
>>56054094
Just keep in mind that unless your constitution have a eternity clause, you can pretty much change the entire thing.
Obviously Im not saying you should or that it would be easy.
But you can. And there is no law that will not expecify what should be considered as violence. This is how they work.
>>56053354
You can interpret that in a wide manner of ways, that suits your interests or the state interests
Still a shit definition
>>56054224
Interpret differently them.
Lets see what can you come up with.
I did that on the fly so I can add even more information. But that pretty much has covered Islam.
I could have added cybernet attacks too.
>>56053054
>>56054165
It has, actually.
You can't remove anything from the Constitution, you can only add amendements, which only alterate the meaning. And I agree there's no law is explaining what violence is, which is why it is dangerous.
>>56054443
By remove I actually mean revoke.
My english a shit.
>>56053171
>christians have the best deaths per attack ratio
beating muslims at their own game
>>56054657
No, it's fine, I see what you meant, and my answer's the same, you can't. The only thing you can do is adding precisions (or making it even more blurry) but once it is in the Constitution, it stays in.
At least that's how it works for our.
>>56054683
;^)
But jokes aside, christianity is still the biggest religion.
Which gives you another perspective on things if muslime sects are more brutal than christianity as a whole.
>>56054802
Ours can.
Maybe our constituions works differently.
We could change anything in ours except for article 60.
>>56054926
What's it about ?
>>56055039
Not the right to bear arms, I tell you. Hue.
Nah, just say about the separation of the 3 powers, the direct, secret, periodic and universiality (?) of the vote, the right of individuals among other things that I dont recall.
>>56055186
Okay I see. Yeah, I understand why this can't be changed.
>>56051280
>those two guys that come just to pull the random guy who threw a bunch of a punches away
>>56055635
those two cops***
