Drowsy Emperor

Episodes 1-3 had a great number of flaws, most notably the atrocious script and characters which is something that no amount of cgi or star wars flair can make up for. But I'll wager they're more Star Wars than what Abrams is going to make. Its just likely that Abram's films will be easier to watch due to more aggressive editing and more action - and leave a better first impression. But the days of carefree adventures with light banter and witty retorts as in the original films are over in Hollywood, and have been for some time If the audience in Bangalore and Bangkok can't "get it" without having to stretch their grey cells or without knowing basic cultural tropes, it isn't getting made.

Yes, and he doesn't hide that fact. He used to be a jihadi, until he ended up in jail and subsequently changed his mind and turned to more political waters. Regardless, he paints a pretty damning picture of everyone, from the Saudis to the US, ISIS, the so called syrian opposition etc.

The star trek films were mediocre. But they weren't really Star Trek anyway, the even featured shots straight up stolen from A New Hope. Star Trek was the old problem solving "i can solve it with brain power and mystical tech alone!" sci-fi, the new films were literally Star Wars... but without all the charm. It was interesting to see how the fans hated the new trilogy when Lucas basically gave them more of the same. They like to think they grew up, yet lined up to watch a sequel to a fairy tale.... expecting to see, what? The new trilogy is literally an inferior copy of the old films, fan fiction style. But it wasn't just disliked, it was positively hated. Now people are going to be thrilled with this film (at least initially when the nostalgia tsunami strikes), and its actually going to be just as childish as the ones before it, but the mere act of changing the demeanor from an airy B movie to "serious drama" (if the trailer is anything to go by) is going to make them think they're watching a film for grownups. I'd prefer it if Star Wars remained witty and fun instead of trying to be clever and deep because I know that's not going to work out (except if they got Avellone to write the script kekekekek).

I guess that the SW brand is more appealing to some than others. I'm weighting this film based on what I see now, not on nostalgia, and here's is my thought process: Trailer: >black stormtrooper is struggling with a crisis of faith , presumably becomes jedi... mhmmmmm >dead serious GI jane speaking wise words into the camera > darth vader's greatest living fan speaking to the remnants of his #1 crush >nostalgia bits, a bit of intense torture, some epic crying, swelling instrumental music, random warfare bla bla Conclusions: > okay so its grimdark now, no more of that childish fantasy of the original or even the less childish but still not very serious new trilogy ... To take star wars seriously is to lack basic understanding of what made the old trilogy good. >it has no hero for me to relate to and the ones on offer haven't presented themselves as anything other than slightly edgy > the villain doesn't look promising I don't see anything to suggest that these movies will be good on their own terms so far

This is such a bizarre statement to me. It seems like you are looking for political correctness, just so you can point at it and dislike it. Wouldn't you rather just enjoy stuff? There was no blatant political correctness in the trailer, but you've clearly already made up your mind as to what the movie will be. That seems like a shame. Lol, if you dont see the obvious female and minority empowerment in the choice of actors then you must not have been watching the same trailer as I have. [sic] But I hate how obvious it is in ticking marketing and political boxes. A lot of false assumptions there. There's box ticking there, but the goal isn't "political correctness" or "minority empowerment", Mr Tinfoil. Since the old cast is back and it's Star Wars, they knew the white nerd dude butts are already in the theatre seats. Because of that, they went to work to get everyone else's butts there too. Let's get real, Hollywood does not give a flying **** about political correctness. It's smaller productions that can't stand up against the tumblr hate mobs, but big tentpoles do these things get money. Just like how both Terminator Genisys and Age of Ultron both added Asians to the cast to pander to Chinese audiences. Big movies are simply not affected by this tumblr warriors vs white nerds bull****. Mad Max is all over the internet in equal parts for supposedly being so politically correct and for being so awesome it's the movie equivelant of the pan-galactic gargle blaster, but it still made jack **** at the box office. Why would they care? Whatever people on the internet care about, that's not a factor in how much a movie makes and therefore not a factor in what Hollywood cares about. Did Jurassic World suffer either for having a female lead, or a white American military guy as a villain, or for having been condemned as being sexist by one of the former top feminist illuminati members? No, it became the third highest grossing movie of all time. And said deposed king of feminists got a taste of his own medicine when the illuminati came after him for making Black Widow a motherhood martyr or some **** (or whatever the **** their irrelevant problems with that movie were) did that actually do anything? Whether its sexist or progressive at this point in time is completely irrelevant to big movies - money, my dear boy, is what matters here. I wonder what the response to Rush Hour would have been if it came out now. An action duo with zero white guys? TO THE INTERNET TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW PERSECUTED I AM! Call it politics, call it targeted marketing to certain age/race/gender groups, call it whatever you want. Its blatant and its boring. Incidentally, who is the white male nerd that used to be the principal demographic of SW (probably still is) supposed to identify and project on in this film? I look at the poster and if we're going to assume that the amount of space devoted for each character in the picture is more or less related to the impact of their role in the film then its as follows: villain, GI jane, black guy, then everyone else: nostalgia cast, droid comic relief and some pilot.

I found this video very interesting, and the topics go much further than what the title would suggest. Ex-Al Qaeda from soviet invasion of afghanistan period talks about Al Qaeda today, Syria, ISIS, Saudis... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weiRHwsOq2U

This is such a bizarre statement to me. It seems like you are looking for political correctness, just so you can point at it and dislike it. Wouldn't you rather just enjoy stuff? There was no blatant political correctness in the trailer, but you've clearly already made up your mind as to what the movie will be. That seems like a shame. Lol, if you dont see the obvious female and minority empowerment in the choice of actors then you must not have been watching the same trailer as I have. Look back at the old Star Wars films and list all the GI Jane type characters you find and all the black actors in anything resembling a main role (DV voice doesn't count) and get back to me. For all intents and purposes the original trilogy is an aryan space fantasy. The women are princesses, the minorities are comic relief characters. The hero is the archetypal aryan character, blue eyed, blond, salt of the earth type. I'm not saying it was racist, I'm just saying what it was. Look, I don't really mind the choice of actors per se. But I hate how obvious it is in ticking marketing and political boxes. It betrays the innocent stupidity that makes SW films watchable and makes them into something else. Its like the recent Mad Max film that has no mad max in it.

-delete

The trailer was so disappointing. The politically correct adventure of an "I can do all you can do" woman, black guy and a soccer ball with R2D2s head on it. And a Darth Vader cosplayer. Lots of old aesthetics to tug on them nostalgia strings. Hilarious nazi scene with massive red banner. Grandpa Ford dead set on pissing on all the best roles of his youth... only BR2 left now. Then again, its dumb to expect anything particularly good from a Steven Spielberg wannabe director. At least the latter had some visionary ideas in his time, that being twenty years ago.

I will definitely concede that point to you, it is hard to imagine what type of impact this surge of immigration and refugees can have on a country. I am definitely speaking as an outsider on this, and I appreciate your perspective. My main point isn't that this isn't a dramatic issue for Europe, but that I believe it has less to do with the religion of Islam, and more to do with culture clashes and human nature. We can look at numerous situations throughout history in comparison where Islam was not in the picture, and yet the issues all look very similar. But Drowsy you also don't really have experience living with Islam, what is the total percentage of Muslims in Serbia ...4 %, 5 % ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Serbia You could only argue the whole " I have experience living with Muslims " if you grew up in a Muslim country or lived predominantly in the Muslim section of a city which I doubt you did either of those two things And I'm same as are most people on these forums Bruce, you forget that at some point there was a country called Jugoslavia and forgot the story of two Balkan domestic conflicts (first, the one which dismantled Jugoslavia and second that ripped Kosovo away from Serbia). When you look at that 5% now, it may seem insignificant, but did you tie it to geographical distribution? Perhaps he lives in a part where muslim populace is a majority? Perhaps he was living in Serbian Kosovo before the changes? Perhaps learn the region's history and ask questions first before undermining his position? Would you like if people would assume odd things about you, because they are misinformed about history of SA? The Ottoman empire occupied and ruled Serbia from 1459-1817. The reality of living under Islam, the wars that preceeded it and the subsequent rebellion by which independence was won is basic history and a part of the national identity for anyone who grew up in Serbia. A lot of it still lingers to this day, from mundane things like turkish words to a tower built of the heads of those who participated in said rebellion. Getting rid of that influence took centuries and a lot of bloodshed. It is probably a blessing that the Ottomans were more interested in ruling and imperialism rather than the rabid luddite Islamism that KSA backs today, otherwise we probably wouldn't exist. It is true that in modern times and after the breakup of Yugoslavia the number of muslims is low and that Serbia is not an attractive target for immigration - which means the number stays low. Nevertheless there are creeping threats from wahhabism in the south, the albanians that have aligned themselves with KSA and bosnian muslims seeking to assimilate the serbian half of bosnia and remove its constitutional powers and only a complete and utter idiot would want to help exacerbate the problem by being in favor of any sort of muslim immigration in Serbia or anywhere in Europe. In fact, after the various terrorist attacks in Europe only a complete idiot would accept any immigration to any EU state from any muslim state when the world is full of poor and uneducated people from friendlier cultural contexts seeking to immigrate, but then, we have already established that idiots reign supreme in Brussels so that's nothing new.

I don't know how you figure that. If its used by every serbo-croatian speaking mosque in the Balkans then it is the very definition of mainstream. And Wahhabism is very widespread in every muslim community here. The only reason its not in effective control is the slavic extremely lax approach to religion, which doesn't mesh well with their imported fanaticism.

This was an internet quote. My version is the "official" Bosnian one (in the sense that its probably the newest and most popular, or more likely only translation in use), translated by Besim Korkut, some or other muslim scholar. The printing was financed by KSA. In Surah 48:25 it says "stern" or more closely "harsh" - definitely not strong. Surah 9:30 it is the same up until the last sentence where it says - "ubio ih Alah!". Which means literally "may Allah destroy/kill them" and the last part is the same. In other words its much closer/identical to the one I quoted originally and the meaning is more straightforward. It is true that religious texts are open to interpretation, however in some cases the intent is rather clear. Here the Christians are equated with the pagans because they dare imply that Christ was the son of God, and not just another prophet. That is essentially idolatry according to Islam, hence them being like the "pagans of old" which is essentially a sin punishable by death (or conversion). Finally, in any great ideology, religion, political party - it is the best organized (usually the most militant) minority that calls the shots. Most muslims aren't going to be asked their opinion about anything, like any other disorganized majority. They merely get told what to do, or what is desirable for them to do. And the imams and other religious leaders are unequivocally anti-European, anti-western, anti-jewish. A few living in the west are mellowed out (or have to watch what they're saying), but for every one of those there are five rabid jihadi preachers. With all due respect Hurlshot, you do not have the actual experience of living with Islam. The number of muslims in the states is still statistically insignificant and do not pose much of a threat. In Europe that is not the case.

It's a rather complicated situation, not unlike Europe before WWI... The Turks are cheering ISIS and trying not to get in their way because they are helping them to eliminate the Kurds as a unified force, the Americans are cheering for the Kurds, being their "boots on the ground" fighting ISIS. For both parties, Assad is the almost forgotten third part. I would put my bets on Russia seeing Assad as their "boots on the ground" fighting ISIS too, it being the bigger threat and wanting to keep their influence out of the Muslim parts of the Caucasus region. Actually the Turks are literally helping ISIS. All the western european jihadi volunteer nutjobs go Through turkey as they keep the border open on purpose. They likely receive basic training there too.

WOD I cannot believe you are taking those links seriously...they are full of biased, untrue, scurrillous and ignorant points. Please don't believe them...I get you don't like Obama but that doesn't mean you have to let people manipulate you. Just a few examples of what is patently false or ignored in those articlesHe clearly thinks Putin is this great leader and seems to admire his ruthlessness....lets analyze that for a moment. The Russian economy is in a recession....I'll repeat that...The Russian economy is in a recessionhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-19/russia-rewrites-blueprint-for-growth-as-recession-dooms-consumer http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/russia-crissis-gdp/ And its not just the fact the global oil price has dropped and Russia never diversified its economy ( another sign of a " great " leader, placing all Russia's economic eggs in ONE basket ) its also a result of the Western sanctions as Putin, the "great " leader has in his infinite wisdom believed he could illegally take the Crimea and basically get Eastern Ukraine to secede and join Russia like he did in Georgia....and he thought the West wouldn't actually use a military option..." Obama is weak remember " Yes the West wouldn't use a military option but battles and ideological conflicts can be won or ended without actually attacking a country...sanctions did work and are working So it amazes me that a Texan and I assume a Capitalist is not concerned with a leader who had made decisions that have caused his country to enter recession And then I keep explaining this and its getting a little frustrating ....the USA is not more involved in Syria as it doesn't want to be. This is not a sign of weakness but prudence ...and who exactly should the USA be ashamed in front of ? No Western country is prepared to send ground troops so it can't be them he is referring to...oh wait he means the countries of the ME Seriously the USA needs to feel humiliated by a group of countries that are currently the most dysfunctional in the world ... countries that despite all being Arab have a major problem where certain members just refuse to help fellow Muslims and Syrian refugees And you want the USA to beg to be liked by these counties....why? The USA and Obama have nothing to prove to the ME and once again as a Texan this surprises me that you hold these countries in such high regard? He also dismisses the Iran negotiations and considers them "failed " Anyway I could honestly go on and on ...but I think I made my point Actually I don't think Putin is great, and while a lot of the facts stated in the first article are correct, I don't agree with his overall conclusion, least of all of co-operating with Putin, who is clearly our enemy. That's why I also posted the second article. My point was that Obola's obvious weakness and incompetence makes Putin look good by comparison. No better enemy, no worse friend. Do you even know why you regard Putin as an enemy or is that an automatic thing? Through which country do you think that shipments for US soldiers in Afghanistan went through? The US and EU media is constantly playing up Putin's supposed aggression and bullying manner and this doesn't correspond to reality in any way. The reality is that he is reacting to dangerous events in his own back yard (Ukraine) or helping one of the few allies he has left (in Syria). The former is a do or die attempt to oppose NATO expansion on his own turf. As the leader of a sovereign country he's doing what anyone else would do in his position. What would you do if a foreign military alliance tries to flip your biggest and most important neighbor (say Mexico or Canada) into your enemy and forward base? You'd nuke them before you'd let that happen. And we almost had it happen in Cuba. And even Cuba was USSR"s reaction for the missiles in Turkey - so even back then in the era when the USSR was a world power it still had to make forced moves for the sake of its own survival. The perception that Obama is weak is false. For pennies his administration upended Ukraine, muddied the water once again in the ME, forcing everyone but themselves to waste immense resources on a stupid and useless war, and Syria is a wreck and going to stay that way. If it ever was a competitor or an enemy (lol at the thought) it now certainly isn't. I don't give a toss about Obama, he's an actor that stamps someone else's decisions - but the people that do make decisions are as constant in their foreign policy as the previous administration, and more or less its continuation. A sort of settlement with Iran was coming regardless of who is in power in the US so I don't see what you're really complaining about.

A bit of posturing on the part of the Turks as Russia's support for Assad is throwing a wrench in their plans to be rid of him. I'd love to actually see them try to shoot down a Russian aircraft.

This may surprise you, but I completely agree. Which is why I'm actually fine with people in Europe dealing with the consequences of the blunders caused by "a few unaccountable ****s in Brussels". Last I checked, all EU members are still nominally democratic. If that is what it takes for people to ****ing wake up and smell the coffee, then so be it. All I can say is that during the Yugoslav Wars I was too young to raise a stink anywhere, though. I'm neither a corporate media fatcat nor a NATO senior commander, so other than raising my voice there's little I can do to affect things. However, past wrongs don't justify current or future mistakes. I don't know. I fear the consequences of the self destructive course european elites have taken is going to be borne by the people, as it always is. The Brussels crowd are not going to vacate their villas and hand them over to the refugees or commit seppuku over what they have done to Syria. And I don't see that l'esprit de resistance among the European population - just these infrequent, and very timid reactions, preemptively squashed and demonized by the media.

Okay, I really have to ask. Have you actually read any of the links you posted? I don't need to refute your sources, because your sources don't back your points! Let's see, factual errors first, politics later. Nearly four in every five (79 %) asylum seekers in the EU-28 in 2014 were aged less than 35 (see Table 3); those aged 18–34 accounted for slightly more than half (54 %) of the total number of applicants, while minors aged less than 18 accounted for one quarter (26 %). — Yep, clearly 3/4 of them are men in their best fighting age. (men aged 18-34 actually amount to ~41%) Out of the 185k first-time asylum seekers in Q1 2015, 26% were Kosovars, 16% Syrians, Afghans amounting to 7%. Those of Maghrebi (North African) origin are a negligible fraction at best — Yep, clearly about half of them are North African or Arab. In 2014, close to half (45 %) of EU-28 first instance asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes, that is grants of refugee or subsidiary protection status, or an authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons [...] This share was considerably lower (18 %) for final decisions (based on appeal or review) / At the end of March 2015, around 530,000 persons were the subject of an application for asylum protection in the EU still under consideration by the responsible national authority — Yep, clearly everyone (well mostly everyone) is welcomed in Europe. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith. [...] While many say there is only one true interpretation, substantial percentages in most countries either say there are multiple interpretations or say they do not know. [...] By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land. [...] Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, relatively few Muslims who back sharia support severe criminal punishments. [...] Muslims in Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe are generally less likely to support stoning adulterers. [...] Elsewhere in the two regions, fewer than four-in-ten favor this type of punishment, including roughly a quarter or fewer across the countries surveyed in Southern and Eastern Europe. [...] In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. — Yep, clearly executing apostates and non-Muslims and conducting female genital amputation is morally paramount. And you ask me why I'm so hostile? Well, you should well know: "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Seriously, if you try to flood me with a bunch of irrelevant or misleading links again, I'm just going to reply by posting a ton of cat memes. I do have a lot of free time — that doesn't mean you get to waste it. Now: Yes. Or we could also look at the rape of Polish and Soviet women by Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members, the rape of German women by RKKA members, the Rape of Nanking, the rape rate in Detroit in '85 and so on and so forth, to see why "the increase in sex crimes in Germany is being fueled by the preponderance of Muslim males among the mix of refugees/migrants entering the country" is total bull****. It's not about Muslims as much as it is about a bunch of other factors such as a complete breakdown of the rule of law, absence of repercussions, dismal living conditions and hopelessness. A bit of сum hoc ergo propter hoc never hurt anyone, right? Now, for some quick fun, let's try a little thought experiment. Let's take Marseille, which ZeroHedge claims has the highest Muslim ratio of any city in Europe, and go with a worst-case scenario: 35% are already Muslims. Now we dump the whole of France's refugee quota (30k) in there. The Muslim percentage goes up from 35% to a whopping... 38%!!! OMFG!!! Clearly, this scheme is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe". If you want me to find links to prove that refugees fleeing from IS and Boko Haram who are granted asylum in Europe will not be raped en masse and murdered by IS and Boko Haram, well, yes, I don't have any. I also don't have any links proving that water is wet and rope is useful for pulling but not for pushing, so please don't ask. I still believe however that we have an immediate moral mandate to at least give people whose countries we're complicit of turning into hellholes a chance to request asylum. I haven't argued for accepting everyone no matter what, because nobody is proposing that. I'm just calling bull**** on your doomsaying. Europe and "the West" at large is much more likely to fall due to to dumbass westerners more worried about their level 100 Pikachu than the fact that their government murders abroad in their name, and who are incapable of thinking for themselves, of even understanding what the freedoms earned by their forebears entail (let alone standing up for them), than to hordes of Muslim refugee-rapists. No, I don't have evidence that absorption of unskilled and uneducated foreigners is positive from a socioeconomic standpoint, and to be honest, I don't believe it is. However, I'm of the opinion that moral imperatives must overrule macroeconomic arguments. And by the way: being an able-bodied male does not mean you are generally obligated to fight in any war. Especially not in those you haven't had a hand in causing. Removing potential manpower reserves from war-torn areas is a good thing, I should think. Where were these moral imperatives when Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory of the Serb population, in Europe, at the end of the XX. century, with western support (or willful ignorance)? All or most of the refugees went to Serbia (which is fine, and expected), but where was the outcry, the sob stories, the unending media bleating? Not a finger was wagged in the direction of Croatia, but instead EU membership was the reward - for doing the same thing that ISIS is doing now. PS: Europe is to blame for the "kosovar" (read: Albanian) asylum seekers too. Who is oppressing them in Kosovo in 2015? What are they seeking asylum from? Now that they have their own dysfunctional mafia state (made by US/Ger) you get to finance them from your welfare.

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, so I'm still not sure what your point is about Iraqis. It's definitely a war torn country. Although I'm surprised to hear there are waves of Afghanis. Its been war torn for over a decade now. Anybody being a refugee from Iraq in 2015. is beyond late. Anyway, new solution to migration problems - reroute them all to Finland.

Ah yes, we are so morally superior because we... subvert our supposed core beliefs to justify whatever temporal needs we may have at a given time. Hmm. Personally, I'm Orthodox Christian and we've never had anything of the kind. Or a history of colonialism and such. But that's entirely besides the point I'm making. Ideas tend to shape society even if day to day interests are its primary drivers. The idea behind Islam is a combative one and one of exclusivity, seeing as how it was created as tool for a particular time and place, with conquest of all its opponents in mind. That's the mindset it promotes. Christianity doesn't. Anyone who does so is essentially abandoning the tenets of their religion. Five times per day, every single day of the year, Imams speak in front of full mosques and their words are carried by radio and many TV channels. What they say is usually mundane, but they do preach Jihad, killing of unbelievers, and cement the differences between muslims and non muslims merely by reading their holy book. Muhammad did it, therefore its morally just. You'd have to be entirely stupid to think that this daily reinforcement of these ideas would be without effect and that it would lead to the same conclusions as Christianity. Ultimately, you just have to look at the geographic realities. In central africa, Islam is in a semi permanent war with animists and christian blacks. It waxes and wanes but its there. In SE asia, Buddhists have trouble with them - like in Thailand. The Chinese are taking serious measures to combat muslim Uyghurs, including wholesale transfers of Han chinese to Uyghur lands to dilute their influence. Russians fought a long war with the Chechens before bringing them to a tenuous peace. What the Hindu think of muslims you don't even have to ask, if Pakistan wasn't given nukes to keep India in check they'd have already obliterated it from the planet. Everywhere where there is a sizeable muslim minority there is trouble, war and terror particularly if its (the religion) tied to a separate ethnic identity. Mind you, this is almost exclusively sunni muslims supported by SA and the gulf states. Iran is much more moderate by comparison and seemingly proves that its possible to reign in Islam if that's the state policy. But its a very lonely example and Iran is in a precarious position, surrounded by very powerful states, that would probably not tolerate KSA style support of terrorism.

That's totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that Muhammad is much closer to Lenin, Stalin or Pol Pot than he is to Jesus or Buddha. Worshiping a merciless military/religious leader is not going to lead to the same conclusions and attitudes as worshiping a pacifist. Even when the christian states of the middle ages and onward were warring among themselves, they knew it was wrong and unjustifiable according to the teachings of Christianity. So much so, that the catholic church had to develop entire doctrines on what constitutes a just war, bending religion over backwards to support the politics of the day. In Islam however, war and violence is justified against everyone who is not a muslim, which is openly stated in the Quran many times (referencing in particular the pagans of that time, but also explicitly Jews and Christians - in other words everyone else who existed at the time). A person may or may not ignore these instructions, but they're there nonetheless, repeated enough times until there can be no debate about their meaning. How is this even open to debate?

So do you, and you are neither English nor American.

European culture is far from what it once was and in a steady decline, although there's no one but the European elites to blame for that. Winning the cultural war with Coca Cola, instagram and pride parades, is like winning a nuclear war.

No, bro. In fact, it's you who has to prove how fulfilling your ****ing obligations with regards to basic international law (cf. Geneva Convention on Refugees), not to mention showing a modicum of humanity is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe", let alone the rest of the tripe about the end of Yurop, Allahu Akbars taking over the world and so on, that you have been spouting lately. Take your time, I'll be here. My screen is fine, by the way. You sure it's not your own bile? I'm surprised that you of all people would be pushing the party line. Most of these immigrants aren't refugees. That has been established at this point. Those that are were already taken care of in countries around Syria and merely decided to move to countries where they believe they'll have access to jobs or welfare. What is a Pakistani fleeing from? Back in the day I watched streams of refugees come into Belgrade when Croatia ethnically cleansed Serbs from Krajina. Endless lines of people with utter desperation and fear on their faces, eyes dead and empty, their old rickety cars and tractors filled to the brim with what belongings they could gather before they had to flee. It was mentally scarring to watch, let alone be a part of that. Coincidentally, these "Syrian refugees" of today are coming en masse through Belgrade on their way to the Hungarian border so I don't have to go more than a few streets to actually see them as they've been given tents and set up in the very center of the city. It looks nothing like what I saw back in the day, no fear or desperation, no belongings with them (meaning they've been left somewhere safe) - more like organized tourism on mass scale. They are not fleeing from anywhere now if (some of them) ever were, merely relocating. The pathetic pictures in the media are exceptions (they really love small children, even though there are very few of them, compared to the overwhelming numbers of healthy 20-30 years old men) picked to provoke a certain response from the public. As for a concrete solution to the Syrian crisis that doesn't involve relocating the ME to Europe - its simply the opposite of what the west has been doing. Stop trying to destroy Assad merely because he's an independent leader, stop supporting ISIS and other rebel groups, get the SA to behave and help Assad take back control of Syria. This refugee problem is the result of a few EU countries kowtowing to the US's endless interventionism. The local (ME) factors won't take a **** without the US saying they can, so even though they're a part of the problem - its because they've been allowed to do so. The entirety of Europe should not have to suffer consequences because a few unaccountable **** in Brussels thought it would be appropriate to topple yet another ruler of a foreign country.

Not all religious icons are equal. Mohammed's life is much better known and he was a warlord in his time. Much of what ISIS is doing, is exactly what Mohammad was doing in his time - including decapitations, destruction of anything "pagan" etc. Liberals need to outgrow the childish manner of treating all religions as the same thing as a way of taking the moral high ground. Most religious texts are open ended and can be interpreted in many different ways, but the Quran, and Islam in general is an extremely militant religion, has been since its creation. It was stopped by endless wars at the gates of Europe, and the downfall of its empires - not because anything about it changed, or because it was internally pushed aside by new ideologies like Christianity in Europe. Europeans may like to think they've outgrown religion, but muslims don't and treat that very idea as an insult. The only thing worse to a muslim believer than a Christian is an atheist and there is no way any of them can, in good conscience, like that sort of liberal, sex drenched,"gay rights" pride parade society. I'm not even much of a believer and I don't like where Europe is heading, so I can only imagine what they think. This leads to the creation of a parallel society where the entire immigrant class socializes internally and is closed off to the rest of the society and vice versa. When they're a few hundred thousand in a society of millions, you can say that's irrelevent, but when there are millions of them living an entirely separate existence it doesn't take a genius to see that that can't lead anywhere good.

Its a sad state of affairs when the only reasonable man in Europe is the Hungarian PM.