Originally Posted by
wibblefox
I think it's an assumption to assume the attack would have happened.
Well done! Assumptions are indeed assumptions!
Arguable, but at some point a country has to say "the lives of our citizens are more important than the lives of outsiders".
All countries do this to some extent, the question is where to draw the line, which is 100% debatable.
How many outsiders lives is 1 citizen worth? 10? 100? 100000?
In terms of numbers of asylum seekers lives put at risk by this compared with the number of citizens killed by terrorist activity that could have been stopped, this proposal if enacted across Europe (I believe the number of refugees pledged to be accepted was around 75,000 - without counting any undocumented migrants, the total number of fatalities due to terrorist activity in Europe from these migrants is around 200, counting the Paris and Brussels attacks as the attackers came back in by hiding among refugees.) Then the ratio would be seen as about 1 citizen : 100 refugees, obviously approximated as I dont know what proportion of the refugees would have managed to survive despite not being able to take refuge.
Now, I do agree that as a country you do have to take the value of your own citizens as more than outsiders, but these kinds of numbers seem far too extreme to me to the point where I would see this as amoral, do you not agree? How many refugees would you find it acceptable to allow to die in order for 1 citizen to survive?
I don't think it's my job to define western country, if most western countries including the country itself consider it to be western, that's really enough for me.
And yes, unstable.
You only answered half the question, why?
The rest of the question was;
Is Turkey in a position where it is more akin to Syria and Iraq than the UK and Spain in terms of susceptibility to terrorist attacks?
Nah I don't really think Norway is the sole authority on what is and isn't western..................... And I don't think there is any possible argument to support that theory.
(EDIT: Well Turkey is being negotiated for both EEA and EU, and if you use that as your definition then Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Switzerland are NOT western, a position that surely even you will admit is incorrect.)
Can you please show me where in my post I said Norway was the sole authority on what is and isn't Western? This was simply a something I found that used classifications where one of them was Western and this is what it defined Western as.
What? Turkey is negotiating to join the EU yes - I havent seen anything about them joining the EEA though, could you link me???
Originally Posted by BBC
A country has to adopt and enforce all the current EU rules before it can be admitted to the bloc. EU rules are divided into 35 policy areas and in 10 years Turkey only managed to adopt the rules on one: science and research. In most other areas it has not even made a start.
Originally Posted by BBC
the European Commission has said no new country will join within the next five years.
Given the document was about immigrants and immigration do you not think the reason Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland (with their combined population of 8.2 million ~ 1/8th the population of the UK) were not given exceptions is that the immigration from those countries was negligible when compared to the rest of the data??
That does not justify you saying "He does want to stop muslim immigration altogether." You have no proof of this other than "seems off"?
Is this a prank?
We have established that his proposal was to stop muslim immigration altogether for an undetermined period of time. The article about immigration was very blatant in that no muslims were going to be able to immigrate.
Just because you think something is wrong is not a license to put words in other people's mouths. Just because it "seems off" or it's "negative discrimination" does not change the policy. Don't confuse your opinion of the policy with your interpretation of the policy.
No, that wasnt an interpretation of the policy, the policy did not differentiate between muslims from different areas of the world or at different levels of risk.
Interpreting the policy in my own way would be to add that in, I did not, you did. It is not putting any words into his mouth to use his exact words, the article was very clear and we were agreed on what it meant. It meant Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims
IMMIGRATING to the United States, for a length of time which is undisclosed.
Dont confuse this policy with the policy he later made in the place of this one.