but these are still GERMAN WOMEN and GERMANY have to find the solution.

nope - the british empire came to THEM and made them british - they did not ask to be part of the empire - so it is a MUCH older problem and LONG existing.

and if you see the numbers with clear eyes 90% of all person with an immigrant background in europe came because of the empire policy of britain, france, netherlands, portugal and spain. NO OTHER european country ever had colonies or gave this colonies the status of a citizen.

NOPE they are not.
the immigrants who can travel free in SCHENGEN (what is NOT the EU) must have a visa what was issued BEFORE 2005.

refugees in Germany do not have a Schengen-Visa. they get only a document what allows them to stay in Germany - they are NOT allowed to travel.

Germany invited NOBODY - the immigration in Geramany is not from islam states. most of these immigrants come from european union and the ex german regions in east europe.

the 745.545 refugees what Germany took in 2016 are GUESTS and not immigrants.
the major part of them will not be able to immigrate but is there becausye of the asylum law what exists ALL OVER THE WORLD.

germany was never in favor of mass-immigration.
but germany NEEDS immigration urgently because the number of German citizens is
decreasing since 20 years.
out of that Germany have an exorbitant emigrant rate.
in 2016 nearly 1 million have left Germany - and for sure they did not do that because they are believing in a closed country.



but that is an old old old british problem - what have merkel to do with that ?

Yes because every problem around the world, and everything bad that anyone chooses to do, is America's fault.

You really are dumb.

OK the video overstates the truth a little, but it's happening. https://www.google.de/webhp?hl=en&gw...+muslim+births

You can research other countries.

The problem is democracy and the way it works. Voters can vote for the government they want. At the moment the numbers are growing steadily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ited_ Kingdom

London has a Muslim Mayor because of the high number of Muslims. Dianne Abbott, who is stupid, is a Black British woman that tries hard to get more Muslims into the country. Because her voters are primarily Muslim. Other central city politicians are in the same boat.

The long term problem is worse than that. No longer does the West require to keep up the birth rate to maintain a strong workforce. Heavy and light industries are leaving and those remaining are automating. And that will only get worse.

Research UK migrants map and UK poverty map to see the problems.

and what are you going to do against their higher (or our lower) birthrate???

castrate them ??? or what is your plan ?

not all - but indeed a lot !

Meanwhile:

Wrong!!!

Modern Europe has never experienced a religion that has words for holy wars or promises rewards in heaven for martyrs fighting in those wars. Nor has it got a word the categories other people who don't follow a strict ideological code as an enemy that should be killed.

Nor does it insist that people who convert out of code should be killed, that they shouldn't marry outside that code. Islam doesn't like to even accept it has a real problem with a lot of the writings and preaching. It blames Europeans and the liberal agenda is to accept the blame and calls it racism. Even if the followers of a strict code similar to radical Islam were white, it would still be wrong and should be condemned. We rightly condemn radical White Supremecists.

follow the money <---the only thing I believe in...$$$$$ is the only possible metric...

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...stration-1.jpg
http://www.sdvfp.org/wp-content/uplo...-fy2013-np.jpg

You must have missed some lessons in school. USA is world's police for NWO we rarely act on something for our just our own interest, if this was the case USA would be all of South & North America & Cuba :2 cents:

dindu nuffin :1orglaugh
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...l-Zawahiri.jpg

Police not violate international law

U.S. Attack on Syria Would Violate International Law
U.S. Attack on Syria Would Violate International Law | HuffPost

i doubt that there was ONE act from USA since WWII what was NOT in the own interest.

on top of that many problems and wars in the world are happening because US needs to export weapons or was/is feared that a country becomes a communist country.

i was reading so much about all this crisis and interventions of the past 50 years and i always found the reason in US economical interests.

as soon as a crisis did not touch that interests it was ignored - no matter how many people died.

well just in my ex-country alone the US gov. supported 2 well known terrorist groups:

1) the croat busic/tudjman group who hijacked planes in the USA and stormed embassies in the USA and tried to blow up the statue of liberty :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh tudjman even wrote a book on "guerrilla warfare" and it is his best selling book...busic was released from US prison after like 30+ years...he was in jail for: terrorism...tudjan (former croat president) has been trying to get him out since the 80-s :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

google "croat terrorism in the USA" for more info...

2) the KLA who, according to US secretary of state madelene allbright and interpol, are guilty of human organ harvesting and trafficking on an intercontinental scale and around 90% of the heroin coming in to europe and their leaders thachi/haradinaj etc suffer from "10-20 witnesses found dead" syndrome :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh kosovo is now losing 5% of its population every year

google "kosovo mafia" when you have tons and tons of time on your hands...sheeeet I wish somebody from interpol was on this board LOL

you...can...not...make...this...shit...up....

what I said stands: the USA has a long history of supporting terrorists...I did not even mention the mujahedeen/alquaeda/ISIS...

Here is a list of most of the countries/territories that were once, or still are, part of the British empire:

So of all of the people that "did not ask" to be made part of the British empire, what is the difference between those that are currently carrying out terrorist attacks in Britain and those that are not?

Think about it for a minute before you answer.



.

Antigua and Barbuda - have prosperity - brits did not take them to england
Australia - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
The Bahamas - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Bahrain - HAVE TERRORISTS but also prosperity
Barbados - same as Bahamas
Belize - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Botswana - have Terrorists
Brunei - have prosperity
Canada - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Cyprus have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Dominica have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Egypt - MANY TERRORISTS
Fiji - never came to europe and live THEIR OWN CULTURE
The Gambia - don´t have knowledge enough to answer that
Ghana - HAVE TERRORISTS
Grenada - never came to europe and live THEIR OWN CULTURE
Guyana - never came to europe and live THEIR OWN CULTURE
Hong Kong - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
India - would be terrorists but the globalization starts giving them prosperity
Israel - was never part of the british empire as the state israel
Iraq - TERRORISTS
Jamaica - too stoned to be terrorists
Jordan - TERRORIST NET
Kenya - TERRORISTS
Kiribati - peaceful indians - but will come when their islands are gone in 30 years
Kuwait - some terrorists
Lesotho - terrorits
Malawi - terrorists
Malaysia - some
Singapore - - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Maldives - a lot of terrorist potential but never braught to europe
Malta - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Mauritius - - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Myanmar - have to much to do with war in their own country
Nauru - don´t know enough about that
New Zealand - - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Nigeria - terrorists
Pakistan - Terrorists
Qatar - not sure about that but never have been directly in terror attacks
Saint Lucia - - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Saint Kitts and Nevis- have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Seychelles - - have prosperity - brits BROUGHT people there
Sierra Leone - Full of terrorists
Solomon Islands - no clue
South Africa - having their own problems - they fight the white in their own country
Sri Lanka - potential
Sudan - Terrorists
Swaziland - Terrorists
Tanzania - don´t know
Tonga - indians who doe not know anything and would never want to go
Trinidad and Tobago - same
Tuvalu- same
Uganda - terror since country exists
United Arab Emirates - terror breeders
United States - terror sponsors - selling arms to terrorists
Vanuatu - indians what will come in 30 years also
Yemen - Terrorists
Zambia - not sure
Zimbabwe - potential terrorists

and yes i know EXACTLY what you want to say what the difference is.

and yes i agree that some smart muslims used their religion to brainwash people and use them for it. and they have been FUCKING successful.

and we will make them every day a bit more sucessful when we start to hate the MAJORITY of muslims who are NOT YET terrorists.

if that would happen (and if we go on this way it WILL happen) we have not only 5% of religious idots against us. we will have 100% against us because we prove that we hate them all.

imagine what will happen on the day when EVERY muslim in the world is ready to die for allah. if this will happen we are all dead. or do you doubt that ?

WRONG. Holland shipped the slaves to Brazil/ South America/ carribean and didn't keep them in Holland. In Holland you have people from Surinam, Indonesia, Carribean that came here after slavery. But not so many cause most stayed in Indonesia, Surinam and South America. Most mass immigration from North Africa to Holland started in the 60'/70s till now (Turkey, Morocco) And a majority of people don't want more immigration.

The majority of countries that made up the British Empire are now doing very well.

There are however a number of countries that for a while under British rule produced billions and had relative peace. That plunged themselves into debt, poverty for most and wars. Once the British left.

This can be said for other countries around the world as Europeans spread their influence.

Thommy seems to forget that Germany has had three empires, pre-ww2, ww2 and the eu.

Those poles got it right :thumbsup

LOL paul...

india before british theft and slavery : 25% of the worlds GDP
india after british "prosperity": 2% of the worlds GDP and 80.000.000 staved to death...

raaaaaape! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Unfortunately, another victim of the terrorist attack was found today in the river -- he (or his body) fell off that bridge.

and lets open the borders and let more in the libs say??

yeah wait till its your child who gets bombed and we will see how you think about that idea...

Where is India now?

During the colonial days, the money made from India went into Britain's GDP figures. You really need to remove the blinkers. Study the East India Company to find out more.

If 10% are pro-radical Islam, the more the whole number is the more pro-radical Islamists there. This means more terrorist attacks.

But that's not the real problem.

The real problem is when they decide to have their own political party representing just Muslim values.

At the moment the SNP represent 5.295 million Scots. There are 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK mostly in England. In 2001 there was 1.3 million. If in 15 years it has doubled, it's obvious in 33 years it could treble to 10 million. Especially when the birth rate of Muslims is so much higher than any other sector.

The SNP have 56 Members of the UK Parliament. What could 10 million Muslims achieve?

The Muslim community is growing steadily across Europe. Which country will be the first to have a Muslim political party with elected politicians?

no paul....BEFORE britan invaded india had 25% of the worlds GDP...look up the word "before" :2 cents:

Which is?

Actually because a German Leader invited them into the EU, it's now an EU problem.

Neither were the people of Germany and the EU asked if they wanted to take on millions of illegal migrants. e way the EU works.

Neither did the countries Germany colonised get asked if they wanted to be invaded.

Mass migration is all about lowering wages and rising profits. Where the migrants come from is not the problem.



So why are they travelling across the EU?



Guest, migrant refuggees or what ever you call them there are millions of non-EU citizens entering the EU most of them without any required skills. There are well over 1.3 million refugees.

Record 1.3 Million Sought Asylum in Europe in 2015 | Pew Research Center

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...-Asylum-01.png

Modern countries do not need more people, the move towards automation has made more workers redundant than it created jobs. Even so the decision the EU made affected all of the EU, not just Germany.

People leaving countries like Germany are the high skilled unless you think they're low-skilled who can't find a decent job in Germany.



Agreed. Once out of the EU the UK can start dealing with the problem of all the low-skilled EU citizens in the UK taking a job from a Brit, relying on the State or forcing wages down. My stance against mass migration isn't about race.

And during the occupation, the GDP was transferred to the UK and the rest of the world advanced because of the industrial revolution. After GB gave India its independence 1?2 million people died during the partition of British India. They couldn't even organise the split of the country without genocide.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-peopl...ition-of-India

The Bloody Legacy of Indian Partition - The New Yorker

They didn't ask the British to stay and organise it. That would have been the safest way.