BTW, according to some sources, ISIS is saying on Twitter that the next targets will be Rome, London and Washington. According to some news sources, the attacks in Paris have killed several hundred persons.

I have said it before and I say it now: This current flow of asylum-seekers to Europe is unsustainable and is destroying Europe. This terrorism is just one example of it.

Several European countries are on verge of war. Angela Merkel and the foreign minister of Luxembourg have both said this, although I disagree with their idea that allowing the flood continue would prevent those wars. Letting the flood continue just makes problems worse.

The other thing is the the flood is so heavy that in many countries there isn't free buildings available anymore. And the costs of providing social security etc is going to cost enormous sums of money which simply is not available for long term. And we know that the employment rates of these immigrants are extremely low even during good economic times and at the moment economy in not in that good shape, unemployment rates are already high etc.

These diversity campaigns that are forced down our throats are very annoying and can make the workplace hostile to me. Why should I feel guilty if members of some minorities tend to be less interested in technology than I am, just because I happen to be a white male? As far as I know, I haven't done anything to keep them out and I have instead helped many women and non-white persons. Should I quit my job or commit harakiri? Or am I redeemed, because I also happen to be a gay (and thus a member of an oppressed minority), unlike those privileged heterosexual women?

I think here is one example of the estimated costs of immigrants in Norway, which is near the levels I mentioned:

http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjo...

http://www.hegnar.no/multimedi...

The estimates I have seen, have been about 500 000 - 1000 000 EUROs, not SEK. BTW, it has been estimated that a native Finnish person who is unemployed most of his life, will cost about 1000 000 euros during lifetime. And the employment rate of Iraqis and Somalis is very low, about 15 percent, in Finland. So it is unsurprising that the cost level is roughly in the same ballpark with so low employment rates.

At least studies in Norway and Sweden show that on average, humanitarian immigrant causes lifetime net cost of about 500 000-1000 000 euros despite the fact that some of them manage to get employed. It means that 1000 humanitarian immigrants costs 500-1000 millions, 100 000 humanitarian immigrants cost 50-100 billion etc. And at the current speed, the numbers are soon rising to several hundreds of thousands persons quite fast, with no end in sight and we are talking about relatively small countries which are providing social security for them.

For example, for some time the number of asylum seekers from Sweden to Finland was typically about 1000 persons a day, which means 365 000 persons a year. The population of Finland is about 5.5 millions, the number of babies born during a year in Finland is under 60 000 persons, the number of already unemployed persons is 222 000 and the unemployment percentage is about 8,3. The size of governmental budget is about 55 billions and the budget deficit is even before this flood several billions a year. We have had persons from Iraq and Somalia for about 20 years here and their employment percentages have remained at around 15 percent even during good economic times and now Finland is in severe economical problems and having all kinds of austerity measures.

At the moment the number of new persons coming to Finland is about 300-400 persons a day (109500-14600 during year), maybe because we are tightening the rules and asylum policies, but it is still completely unsustainable on the long term. The total tax rate is already 44,5 %, and we cannot raise it over to 100 %. And even something near 100 % would cause the economy to collapse. And the costs for providing social security was already 66 billions (part of it is covered by municipality instead of government) in 2014, before the flood of asylum seekers really started.

It's not only the housing but costs for providing social security is unsustainable with the current flow of asylum seekers. It doesn't take more just few years and even 100 % taxation wouldn't be enough to provide social security for these asylum seekers. Although some of the asylum seekers may be able to find jobs, the traditional levels of employment have been very low for many of these groups (for example, the biggest asylum seeker groups in Finland are Iraqis and Somalis and even during better economic times, they have had about 15 % employment (not unemployment) rate).

And within surprisingly short time, the local population would become minority, unless the social security system collapses before that and the flood of asylum seekers stops. And if history tells something, it quite often means very bad times for the original population (e.g. Palestinians, Indians, Aboriginals etc).

I am afraid that if it this flood is not stopped in one way or another soon, there will chaos or even wars in large parts of Europe.

Reaching Kickstarter goal is not a good measure by itself. Reaching Kickstarter goal more often could mean that women just put their Kickstarter goals to more modest level than men do. Women tend to ask lower wages than men and it could be that women put their goals on Kickstarter to lower level than men do.

Here are some news which mentioned that the reason why UK wanted to have secret trials seems to be mainly because it wants to avoid revealing scandals like involvement in crimes against human rights:

http://www.theguardian.com/law...

http://iengage.org.uk/news/207...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Wasn't this whole secret trials system invented in order to hide the scandals that UK was directly involved with the torture of of the prisoners? One of the cases mentioned when this system was planned was the case of Binyam Mohamed, where the torture included making cut to penis and chest with scalpels or razor blades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

I think it was treaty between countries instead of cabinets. Even if the cabinet changes, that should not affect the treaty in any way. And even if there wouldn't be that treaty, annexing parts of other country like that, is illegal.

Almost anything that you heard from Putin or his followers is a outright lie, bad excuse or distortion. Like the lie that it is not his soldiers operating in unmarked uniforms in Crimea or that they have reduced the the number of soldiers on border, waiting to attack Ukraine.

And there was very little threat against Russians speakers in Ukraine. Protecting them was just another excuse. And now Putin is on purpose causing those troubles in eastern parts of Ukraine. Russia is instruction Russian citizens how to go eastern Ukraine an without causing suspicions and then how to get a weapon there, uniform etc.

One of the most zealous sets of people we see today (at least in my myopic U.S.-centric personal experience) are homosexuals. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my observation seems to be that this particular group of people has made homosexuality the defining feature of their life. As such, even minor disagreement with the idea that homosexuality is completely normal results in a strong adverse reaction and accusations of fear and hatred.

IMHO, you are mistaken. Correct if I am wrong, but I don't remember many incidents where gays shoot, bomb or beat with baseball bats their opponents or non-gays, because they are not gays. However, we have many other groups which use that kind of violence towards groups they oppose, including gays. I would call persons who use or just silently support that kind of violence, as zealots.

And if you are not not a member of some group which is facing strong discrimination, violence and persecution, I think it is quite hypocrite to call members of that kind of groups as zealots, when they non-violently oppose their bad treatment.

If this news is reliable (there have been other polls which show more support for Assad regime than for rebels), it is woth to notice that majority of Syrians seem to support Assad regime instead of the rebels, many of which are foreign islamists:

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

And it was Saddas regime which suggested solving the conflict by having elections, but the rebels refused this offer. I wonder why...

And it is worth to remember, that the illegal attack by USA to Iraq caused the death of hundreths of thousands of people (perhaps even a million) and Iraq might have been better of with Saddam, as evil as he was. I don't think Syria needs that kind of "help".

Didn't some rebels in Turkey get caught with some dangerous chemicals quite recenly? And since spring, there has been rumours about doing a false flag operation by using chemical weapons in Syria.