• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keep it simple......shoot refugees (another AfD meltdown)

Chagos

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
35,204
Reaction score
11,645
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Furthering agenda of the party supposedly most addressing the German public's concern, AfD's leader Frauke Petry calls for police's right to use firearms against refugees trying to enter the country.

German right-leaning AfD leader calls for police right to shoot at refugees | News | DW.COM | 30.01.2016

Where she's meanwhile back-pedalling, it takes nothing from the fact that her deputy Beatrix von Storch, when asked on Facebook whether this would include applying armed force against women and children as well, answered with "yes". (no link other than in German FB).

This is the party that in the minds of many even here addresses "legitimate concerns".

Well, that certainly tops a stance recently posted on here that violent attacks on refugee centers are the inevitable outcome of "legitimate" concerns not being properly addressed. Oh no, not by any means meant as some sort of apologia for the perpetrators :roll:

For anyone in doubt, shooting refugees at borders is pretty unpopular in Germany since the GDR crashed. It's also completely illegal.

But let's see somebody justify this idiocy.
 
Chagos said:
Furthering agenda of the party supposedly most addressing the German public's concern, AfD's leader Frauke Petry calls for police's right to use firearms against refugees trying to enter the country.

German right-leaning AfD leader calls for police right to shoot at refugees | News | DW.COM | 30.01.2016

Where she's meanwhile back-pedalling, it takes nothing from the fact that her deputy Beatrix von Storch, when asked on Facebook whether this would include applying armed force against women and children as well, answered with "yes". (no link other than in German FB).

This is the party that in the minds of many even here addresses "legitimate concerns".

Well, that certainly tops a stance recently posted on here that violent attacks on refugee centers are the inevitable outcome of "legitimate" concerns not being properly addressed. Oh no, not by any means meant as some sort of apologia for the perpetrators :roll:

For anyone in doubt, shooting refugees at borders is pretty unpopular in Germany since the GDR crashed. It's also completely illegal.

But let's see somebody justify this idiocy.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to spout your pro Muslim rape invasion propaganda but she clearly said "if necessary," and yes Muslim invaders mobbing the border and rioting when they're not allowed in should be shot on sight.
 
Chagos said:
Furthering agenda of the party supposedly most addressing the German public's concern, AfD's leader Frauke Petry calls for police's right to use firearms against refugees trying to enter the country.

German right-leaning AfD leader calls for police right to shoot at refugees | News | DW.COM | 30.01.2016

Where she's meanwhile back-pedalling, it takes nothing from the fact that her deputy Beatrix von Storch, when asked on Facebook whether this would include applying armed force against women and children as well, answered with "yes". (no link other than in German FB).

This is the party that in the minds of many even here addresses "legitimate concerns".

Well, that certainly tops a stance recently posted on here that violent attacks on refugee centers are the inevitable outcome of "legitimate" concerns not being properly addressed. Oh no, not by any means meant as some sort of apologia for the perpetrators :roll:

For anyone in doubt, shooting refugees at borders is pretty unpopular in Germany since the GDR crashed. It's also completely illegal.

But let's see somebody justify this idiocy.
Click to expand...

Simple, yes. But you should not fall for the party line. What she said was quite true. If necessary and only then, any nation should defend its law with lethal force.
 
thought this would soon attract the calliphoridae :mrgreen:
 
joG said:
Simple, yes. But you should not fall for the party line. What she said was quite true. If necessary and only then, any nation should defend its law with lethal force.
Click to expand...

What constitutes 'if necessary'? Think that's an avoidance of the issue at hand because that's where the issue lies. What necessitates the use of lethal force and what doesn't?

For those with short memories, Germany already had a big wall where people who tried to cross it were shot. It was brought down to great celebration. Let's not go back to measures like that.
 
Nilly said:
What constitutes 'if necessary'? Think that's an avoidance of the issue at hand because that's where the issue lies. What necessitates the use of lethal force and what doesn't?

For those with short memories, Germany already had a big wall where people who tried to cross it were shot. It was brought down to great celebration. Let's not go back to measures like that.
Click to expand...
I actually pointed that out in the OP but I guess to some it's not a question of "whether" but of "who".

The clear illegality of such an act (by German law) obviously going completely unnoticed. Not only by Petry and von Storch, but by some DP members as well.
 
Nilly said:
What constitutes 'if necessary'? ...
Click to expand...

If they are causing an imminent threat to one or more German citizen's safety, health, or lives, up to and including the German police officer that has the weapon. The same as the police use lethal force in any other western nation.
 
To be fair warning shots should be fired at their feet first and be screamed at to DANCE! Dance Mother****ers!!
 
Beaudreaux said:
If they are causing an imminent threat to one or more German citizen's safety, health, or lives, up to and including the German police officer that has the weapon. The same as the police use lethal force in any other western nation.
Click to expand...

And in 99% of cases, simply trying to cross the border would not fulfill those criteria. Hence the outrage at the AdF leaders comments, especially when she calls for children to be shot also.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Perception is important.

How many of the Muslims being attacked are actually committing crimes that make them 'thugs', and how many are actually victims?
Click to expand...




The ones running out of the store, would be a clue....


as you can see, while it may appear violent to you, they seem to be detaining them instead of simply putting a beat down on them.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The ones running out of the store, would be a clue....


as you can see, while it may appear violent to you, they seem to be detaining them instead of simply putting a beat down on them.
Click to expand...

Does this video of several Muslims robbing a store justify claiming that all Muslim refugees are morally suspect?
 
Nilly said:
What constitutes 'if necessary'? Think that's an avoidance of the issue at hand because that's where the issue lies. What necessitates the use of lethal force and what doesn't?

For those with short memories, Germany already had a big wall where people who tried to cross it were shot. It was brought down to great celebration. Let's not go back to measures like that.
Click to expand...

This comparison is absurd. Germany was a single nation that was forcibly split in half after WWII. Germans trying to internally flee within their own homeland into the care of fellow Germans is not the same as uncontrolled illegal immigration from far-away foreigners (Don't speak German, Don't know German customs and most importantly cant even drink beer). Unfortunately borders still serve a purpose in our contemporary world and right now Germany needs one badly.

As for her comment itself she left this vague and used the words "As A Last Resort". I think this is far from implying some kind of shoot on sight scenario, but obviously if thats what you feel she meant I would be totally against that.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Does this video of several Muslims robbing a store justify claiming that all Muslim refugees are morally suspect?
Click to expand...



I would say no. I would also suggest seeing rape mobs of a 1000 young muslim men may suggest the problem is far bigger than europe cares to admit.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There is no justification for vigilantism.
Click to expand...

When the government refuses to do jack about the problem and instead resorts to attempting coverups and media censoring of incidents caused by Muslim refugees, sooner or later the citizens are going to get pissed enough to solve the problem themselves.
 
Nilly said:
And in 99% of cases, simply trying to cross the border would not fulfill those criteria. Hence the outrage at the AdF leaders comments, especially when she calls for children to be shot also.
Click to expand...

You asked what was the definition of "if necessary," and I gave you one, my definition, but at least one. The government of Germany/Sweden/Holland/whomever, may have a completely different definition.
 
Roadvirus said:
When the government refuses to do jack about the problem and instead resorts to attempting coverups and media censoring of incidents caused by Muslim refugees, sooner or later the citizens are going to get pissed enough to solve the problem themselves.
Click to expand...

There is no justification for vigilantism. Get rid of the government if they aren't doing their job. Nothing justifies what you elude to in you last sentence above. However, protection of your own life, or the lives of your family, when they are under imminent threat of harm is both moral and ethical, even if it may not be legal in Germany. To go out and round up people just because you think they may have caused, or may in the future cause, harm is neither moral nor ethical nor probably legal in any western country.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There is no justification for vigilantism. Get rid of the government if they aren't doing their job. Nothing justifies what you elude to in you last sentence above. However, protection of your own life, or the lives of your family, when they are under imminent threat of harm is both moral and ethical, even if it may not be legal in Germany. To go out and round up people just because you think they may have caused, or may in the future cause, harm is neither moral nor ethical nor probably legal in any western country.
Click to expand...
However, protection of your own life, or the lives of your family, when they are under imminent threat of harm is both moral and ethical, even if it may not be legal in Germany.
Click to expand...
It is.

Self defense is a recognized principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom