The current refugee wave in Europe

[Darkpriest]

Apparently not wanting Ww3 means you lack balls, to some.

 

Last thing we need is the conflict in ME to escalate to WW3.... but with the amount of natural resources and old grudges within the region alone, things might escalate... the best we can hope is that it will remain a regional Shia/Sunni conflict, but with Turkey being a part of NATO and high probability of it being dragged into a conflict... I mean, there are all the ingridients in that pot for things to blow up... I just hope it won't and that lessons in the WW2 and WW1 societies can hold leaders of main participants of those conflicts away from going full retard.

[obyknven]

Moar refugees for god of refugees.

http://www.infowars.com/moscow-says-600-militants-flee-syria-vows-to-ramp-up-bombing/

 

 

Russian air strikes Saturday targeting the Islamic State group in Syria have sown “panic”, forcing some 600 “militants” to abandon their positions and head to Europe, Moscow claimed.

 

“Our intelligence shows that militants are leaving areas under their control. Panic and desertion have started in their ranks,” Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, a senior Russian General Staff official, said in a statement.

“Some 600 mercenaries have abandoned their positions and are trying to find their way into Europe,” Kartapolov said.

“Over the past three days we have managed to undermine material and technical resources of the terrorists and significantly reduce their combat potential,” he added. “We will not only continue the strikes by our air force but also will increase their intensity.”

 

 

[Malcador]

 

Apparently not wanting Ww3 means you lack balls, to some.

 

Last thing we need is the conflict in ME to escalate to WW3.... but with the amount of natural resources and old grudges within the region alone, things might escalate... the best we can hope is that it will remain a regional Shia/Sunni conflict, but with Turkey being a part of NATO and high probability of it being dragged into a conflict... I mean, there are all the ingridients in that pot for things to blow up... I just hope it won't and that lessons in the WW2 and WW1 societies can hold leaders of main participants of those conflicts away from going full retard.

 

Oh, just that one of the articles gave the impression that the author thought backing down over any flashpoint is cowardice - that kind of thinking usually comes from hawks who never go to fight, heh.

[213374U]

Oh, just that one of the articles gave the impression that the author thought backing down over any flashpoint is cowardice - that kind of thinking usually comes from hawks who never go to fight, heh.

 

Both are vets. One is/was a USAF colonel, intelligence. The other deployed to Iraq as "Squadron Judge Advocate", whatever that is.

 

There's psychos in all branches though, so I'm not making guesses as to whether they are actually "combat" vets or just glorified desk jockeys.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Actual quote from the Obola/Putin meeting : "Bend over, lady-boy!"

 

How low have we sunk when Putin looks good by comparison? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/putin_the_indispensable_man.html

Hard to argue with his facts.

 

Don't think cooperating with Russia is a good idea though : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424930/four-dangerous-realities-putins-middle-east-power-play-david-french

 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 articles

• He 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 recession

http://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.

[Hildegard]

"Moderate rebels" are those who started the uprising and were the main force carrying it in the beginning. After they were left out in the cold instead of getting support from outside (like the West), they were crushed between Assad's forces and the Islamic groups (pre-ISIS mainly backed by the oil monarchies). There were "moderate rebels" who could be called that; it's just that they've been basically annihilated since. That all opposition was Islamic from the beginning is an outright lie that Assad's consistently been trying to sell in order to present himself as the only source of stability and secularism.

 

Zoraptor: That map (as most maps of Eastern Syria) is quite misleading (not intentionally) at first glance. The majority of Homs Governorate may be coloured black for the IS but in terms of actually usable and settled land, it much less clear. And in terms of population, the government wins by a large margin.

So yes, not the city of Homs. But Russian airstrikes have been aimed at rebel territory just north of Homs, and northwest of Hama. That has absolutely nothing to do with the IS.

To be fair, that's not the first time someone has used that tactic. A few weeks back, as we remember, Erdogan started bombing the Kurds under the pretence of fighting against the IS.

 

You can put any sort of garbage under the umbrella of 'moderate rebels'. It's exactly the same modus operandi of the West and its allies at the start of major conflicts in Syria. Back then everybody were glorified rebels fighting evil Assad and his forces. A few radicals here and there but nothing that western propaganda couldn't bury under the rug. US and Western European countries, via money from governments, organization and individuals from Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries were unloading equipment, money and arms to the opposition of Assad inside Syria without ever giving a single sincere **** who is actually getting armed and funded. 

 

Countries I mentioned earlier are the very ones responsible for the creation of ISIS. They created a monster they couldn't control anymore once it got too big and strong. Another blunder in the US think tank which is often more retarded than intelligent. US airstrikes against ISIS are a frikin joke. In their scope and designated targets. ISIS main funding these days is via Turkey because ISIS sells them oil for prices lower than market prices. They aren't disturbing those trade lines at all. Turkey is an indirect ally of ISIS because they have a common enemies, the Kurds and Assad. That's no conspiracy, just plain facts. Their war efforts, together with US, against ISIS are cosmetic, for public show and therefor ineffective. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni countries are all in fact more rooting for ISIS than they want to see them destroyed. All of them just want ISIS to do the dirty job for them. Their Sunni brothers fighting for Islam doing out in the open what they can't so they gave them billions of dollars, equipment and training. 

 

I for one am very glad Russia came into the play because they are the only country with the will and intent to destroy and bomb the **** out of ISIS scum. They are going to wipe western backed 'moderate rebels' as well (whatever the **** that means)? I ain't gonna shed one tear for the deaths of those who are just instruments in the hands of the US for their national building plans to suit their geopolitical and economic plans. 

 

There is a sighting of counter balance to US/British hegemony in the ME in the form of Syria, Iran, Russia and China. I really hope that alliance last and grows stronger. 

 

Cheers 

Edited October 3, 2015 by Hildegard

[Ineth]

This poster which was put up in Ireland makes some good points:

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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.

 

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.

[Volourn]

"I ain't gonna shed one tear for the deaths of those who are just instruments in the hands of the US for their national building plans to suit their geopolitical and economic plans. "

 

L0L "Human" L0L

[Darkpriest]

There are rumors, that one of German agencies estimated a probably influx of 900k refugees in Q4 2015 alone to Germany, making it around 1,5 mln total. This obviously started to raise tensions among German politicians.

 

On another note, an incident over Turkey as Russian combat aircraft was intercepted by Turkish fighters and escorted out of their airspace. They warned Russians, that should the situation repeat they will be responsible for any undesired incident that might happen.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Drowsy Emperor]

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. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

Actual quote from the Obola/Putin meeting : "Bend over, lady-boy!"

 

How low have we sunk when Putin looks good by comparison? http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/putin_the_indispensable_man.html

Hard to argue with his facts.

 

Don't think cooperating with Russia is a good idea though : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424930/four-dangerous-realities-putins-middle-east-power-play-david-french

 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 articles

• He 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 recession

http://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.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Meshugger]

 

P.S. Please do not try to refute the sources, instead please come up with your own sources or logical arguments that strengthens your claims. That's a more interesting conversation.

 

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:

 

But that's just the situation right now. We can always look at history, like Lebanon, Sudan, the Balkans, the split of India into India, Bangladesh and Pakistan just to name a few

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.

 

 

Alrighty then, i finally have the time to answer this. I have been quite busy with working on my next heart-break, and i have some spare time now. I will answer by points instead of quoting everything separately for everyone's viewing pleasure.

 

1. The first link is moot, because those stats rely on the events before Frau Merkel declared "All Syrians welcome, no questions asked!".

2. All Kosovars except maybe 4 or 5 were declined due to reasons of them not being persecuted in their home country. By the same rules, almost none of the current refugees would be allowed in any way.

3. With expectations of 1,5 million to Germany alone for 2015, i do not even know they will be able to process anything at all.

4. Too bad there are hardly any muslim refugees from Central Asia or south eastern Europe.  Check the stats for those coming from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan. Those are atleast overwhelming majority of sudden refugees. Take for example Denmark having problem with these new values, where 80% danish muslims do not agree upon the foundations of Danish society (link:

35:20-36:10). I agree with the Danish Minister btw.

5. Lets not compare rapes in war-time, where it was unofficially sanctioned as a way of warfare, to civilian life in Germany.

6. About Marseille, the native population is already dwindling no matter what. Replacing them with refugees is not a sustainable long term solution. Besides, I am not pointing out the current amount of refugees this year alone, but the current trend and long term development. I do need to remind you have bad it is in the banlieues and about the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo-attack.

7. Of course will the West is it's own worst enemy, combining the welfare-state, low native birth rates and mass immigration will be the implosion of respective own countries making. The open borders are just a symptom. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every country is taking out loans (bond selling) from international banks in order to pay for this. (Paging KP for this)

8. Fair enough. I just hope that i am wrong (nothing happens, future is bright, people get together and embrace liberal values of self determination) and that you're not. If you're wrong about the future prospects, then we have several civil wars on our way, moral imperatives or not.

9. Disagree on being able-bodied and not fighting. I have no interest in harboring cowards and deserters in my midst. Of course there are exceptions and that's why there should be a thorough background check to see if there are any mitigating circumstances.

[Gorth]

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.

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.

[213374U]

Alrighty then, i finally have the time to answer this. I have been quite busy with working on my next heart-break, and i have some spare time now. I will answer by points instead of quoting everything separately for everyone's viewing pleasure.

 

1. The first link is moot, because those stats rely on the events before Frau Merkel declared "All Syrians welcome, no questions asked!".

2. All Kosovars except maybe 4 or 5 were declined due to reasons of them not being persecuted in their home country. By the same rules, almost none of the current refugees would be allowed in any way.

3. With expectations of 1,5 million to Germany alone for 2015, i do not even know they will be able to process anything at all.

4. Too bad there are hardly any muslim refugees from Central Asia or south eastern Europe.  Check the stats for those coming from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan. Those are atleast overwhelming majority of sudden refugees. Take for example Denmark having problem with these new values, where 80% danish muslims do not agree upon the foundations of Danish society

5. Lets not compare rapes in war-time, where it was unofficially sanctioned as a way of warfare, to civilian life in Germany.

6. About Marseille, the native population is already dwindling no matter what. Replacing them with refugees is not a sustainable long term solution. Besides, I am not pointing out the current amount of refugees this year alone, but the current trend and long term development. I do need to remind you have bad it is in the banlieues and about the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo-attack.

7. Of course will the West is it's own worst enemy, combining the welfare-state, low native birth rates and mass immigration will be the implosion of respective own countries making. The open borders are just a symptom. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every country is taking out loans (bond selling) from international banks in order to pay for this. (Paging KP for this)

8. Fair enough. I just hope that i am wrong (nothing happens, future is bright, people get together and embrace liberal values of self determination) and that you're not. If you're wrong about the future prospects, then we have several civil wars on our way, moral imperatives or not.

9. Disagree on being able-bodied and not fighting. I have no interest in harboring cowards and deserters in my midst. Of course there are exceptions and that's why there should be a thorough background check to see if there are any mitigating circumstances.

 

 

1. But the first link is what your link is based on. It's literally the latest official available data. The quarterly report doesn't have sex distribution. Merkel's statement was on the first week of september, so no data available yet. Also, she was specifically referring to Syrians, not "mostly everyone". Syrians, as has been established, do not make up a majority of the asylum seekers. So what is your point, again?

2. Erm, yeah. That's kind of the point. Not every immigrant is entitled to political asylum, and nobody has argued that they be granted it no questions asked. They must properly demonstrate that they are facing persecution in their country.

3. Do you have a source for this?

4. Ugh. Fine, let's check for Afghanistan and Iraq. Somalia doesn't have data. A little over 34% of Iraqis consider that non-Muslims should have to abide by sharia law. It increases to a bit over 60% for Afghanistan. The fraction that would favor the harsher stuff is necessarily lower as you'd be multiplying by a factor smaller than 1. Again, nowhere near "morally paramount" for muslims, even from the most reactionary of countries. The video showed a politician making an offhand reference to "research" which she didn't produce and nobody called her on it. Do you have this research?

5. Nope, fortunately I already provided a non-wartime example, which shows a disproportionate rape rate in a developed country during peacetime. Which you conspicuously ignored.

6. Nope, sorry. It actually isn't, and let's see why: population in France as a whole is increasing. Childbirth resulting from mixed (one French and one non-EU parent) couples is about 80% larger than the number of children being born from non-EU couples. There are more than ten times more children being born from one or both French parents than there are children born from foreigners (EU or not). Sure, the trend seems to be a decrease in full-on French births, but it will take *decades* for that trend to "radically change the demographics". Provided the trend holds. Please be so kind to reference your claims in the future.

9. Taking refugees in isn't about what you or me happen to be "interested" in. It's about human rights, themselves based on moral minimums. Wanting to avoid being forcefully conscripted to fight a war has little to do with cowardice. Nobody has a duty to take up arms. Non-violence is a perfectly valid personal choice, look it up. Again, the effects that conscription have on the population abound in history (cf. post-WWII Germany), and that's even without getting into the more muddy questions of whether taking up arms is the same as "fighting for freedom", especially in this context, where different factions are struggling to impose their own blend of tyranny. But whatever, it took being discharged from the military (I wasn't a pencil pusher) and a deep personal crisis for me to realize a lot of this stuff. I don't really expect you to agree just because I say so.

 

Good luck with your heartbreak, btw.

Edited October 5, 2015 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

 

Alrighty then, i finally have the time to answer this. I have been quite busy with working on my next heart-break, and i have some spare time now. I will answer by points instead of quoting everything separately for everyone's viewing pleasure.

 

1. The first link is moot, because those stats rely on the events before Frau Merkel declared "All Syrians welcome, no questions asked!".

2. All Kosovars except maybe 4 or 5 were declined due to reasons of them not being persecuted in their home country. By the same rules, almost none of the current refugees would be allowed in any way.

3. With expectations of 1,5 million to Germany alone for 2015, i do not even know they will be able to process anything at all.

4. Too bad there are hardly any muslim refugees from Central Asia or south eastern Europe.  Check the stats for those coming from Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan. Those are atleast overwhelming majority of sudden refugees. Take for example Denmark having problem with these new values, where 80% danish muslims do not agree upon the foundations of Danish society

5. Lets not compare rapes in war-time, where it was unofficially sanctioned as a way of warfare, to civilian life in Germany.

6. About Marseille, the native population is already dwindling no matter what. Replacing them with refugees is not a sustainable long term solution. Besides, I am not pointing out the current amount of refugees this year alone, but the current trend and long term development. I do need to remind you have bad it is in the banlieues and about the reactions after the Charlie Hebdo-attack.

7. Of course will the West is it's own worst enemy, combining the welfare-state, low native birth rates and mass immigration will be the implosion of respective own countries making. The open borders are just a symptom. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every country is taking out loans (bond selling) from international banks in order to pay for this. (Paging KP for this)

8. Fair enough. I just hope that i am wrong (nothing happens, future is bright, people get together and embrace liberal values of self determination) and that you're not. If you're wrong about the future prospects, then we have several civil wars on our way, moral imperatives or not.

9. Disagree on being able-bodied and not fighting. I have no interest in harboring cowards and deserters in my midst. Of course there are exceptions and that's why there should be a thorough background check to see if there are any mitigating circumstances.

 

 

1. But the first link is what your link is based on. It's literally the latest official available data. The quarterly report doesn't have sex distribution. Merkel's statement was on the first week of september, so no data available yet. Also, she was specifically referring to Syrians, not "mostly everyone". Syrians, as has been established, do not make up a majority of the asylum seekers. So what is your point, again?

2. Erm, yeah. That's kind of the point. Not every immigrant is entitled to political asylum, and nobody has argued that they be granted it no questions asked. They must properly demonstrate that they are facing persecution in their country.

3. Do you have a source for this?

4. Ugh. Fine, let's check for Afghanistan and Iraq. Somalia doesn't have data. A little over 34% of Iraqis consider that non-Muslims should have to abide by sharia law. It increases to a bit over 60% for Afghanistan. The fraction that would favor the harsher stuff is necessarily lower as you'd be multiplying by a factor smaller than 1. Again, nowhere near "morally paramount" for muslims, even from the most reactionary of countries. The video showed a politician making an offhand reference to "research" which she didn't produce and nobody called her on it. Do you have this research?

5. Nope, fortunately I already provided a non-wartime example, which shows a disproportionate rape rate in a developed country during peacetime. Which you conspicuously ignored.

6. Nope, sorry. It actually isn't, and let's see why: population in France as a whole is increasing. Childbirth resulting from mixed (one French and one non-EU parent) couples is about 80% larger than the number of children being born from non-EU couples. There are more than ten times more children being born from one or both French parents than there are children born from foreigners (EU or not). Sure, the trend seems to be a decrease in full-on French births, but it will take *decades* for that trend to "radically change the demographics". Provided the trend holds. Please be so kind to reference your claims in the future.

9. Taking refugees in isn't about what you or me happen to be "interested" in. It's about human rights, themselves based on moral minimums. Wanting to avoid being forcefully conscripted to fight a war has little to do with cowardice. Nobody has a duty to take up arms. Non-violence is a perfectly valid personal choice, look it up. Again, the effects that conscription have on the population abound in history (cf. post-WWII Germany), and that's even without getting into the more muddy questions of whether taking up arms is the same as "fighting for freedom", especially in this context, where different factions are struggling to impose their own blend of tyranny. But whatever, it took being discharged from the military (I wasn't a pencil pusher) and a deep personal crisis for me to realize a lot of this stuff. I don't really expect you to agree just because I say so.

 

Good luck with your heartbreak, btw.

 

 

Depending on tonight's adventure, i will answer shortly.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

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.

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.

[Rostere]

 

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.

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.

 

No, you're wrong. None of the involved parties except possibly the Kurds thinks of ISIS as the biggest threat (Turkey is the contender to that title).

 

ISIS is not the biggest threat to Assad, because he know that in a contest between ISIS and Assad, the global community will choose Assad. Assad is doing his best to eliminate all rebel factions which could win the civil war with the support of most of the global community. Russia does not see ISIS as the biggest threat for the same reasons.

 

Turkey does obviously not consider ISIS a threat to them, they consider them to be a pawn against both Assad and the Kurds.

 

Israel probably considers none of the warring parties a military threat, and their PM has repeatedly said that he favours a deadlock, where all the factions fight themselves into oblivion.

 

The US does not consider ISIS their biggest threat, they consider Assad the biggest threat, because if you remove Assad, the Russians would be on the side of the moderate Syrian rebels and there would be no issue with the US bombing what they want wherever they want in Syria. Well, of course, none of the factions are a threat to the US, but you get my point.

 

Possibly the Iraqis considered ISIS their biggest threat for some time, but now that all Shia-majority parts of Iraq are re-occupied, the Kurds have returned to being their greatest threat, since they are the only part of Iraq which could conceivably secede with the support of the global community.

 

Now on the other hand, everybody says that ISIS is the main enemy, because that's where there is PR to be gained.

[Malcador]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-volunteer-idUSKCN0RZ11X20151005

[Darkpriest]

LOL volunteers... hahahaha... ok...

[Hurlshort]

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. 

 

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"  Islam is not about treating everyone equally.  This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.  Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

 

 

 

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

 

 

Tabari 9:69  "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"  The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

 

How is this even open to debate?

 

You know, this stuck with me for a bit, because it didn't sound too accurate.  But my copy of an English Koran was at work, and I didn't look it up until just now.  Needless to say, it doesn't match up nearly the same.  My copy is published by Tahrike Tarsile Qu'ran, Inc. in New York, and I have the 14th edition, dated 2005.

 

Surah 48:29 Muhammad is the Messanger of Allah; and those who are within are strong against unbelievers, but compassionate amongst each other.  You will see them bow and prostrate themselves in prayer, seeking grace from Allah and his good pleasure.  On their face are marks, being the traces of this prostration.  This is their similitude in the Tauratl and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, filling the sowers with rage and delight.  As a result, it fills the unbelievers with rage at them.  Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and a great reward.

 

 

Surah 9:30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah.  That is a saying from their mouth; in this they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say.  Allah's curse be upon them: how they are deluded away from the truth!

 

 

As for the Tabari, that is a book written by an islamic scholar.  It his record of something someone told him that Muhammad said.  It is hardly what can be considered a central teaching.

 

Much like the bible, translation, context, and interpretation can vary dramatically.  We can cherry pick verses and engage in internet theology all day, but the fact is very few Muslims are out trying to behead unbelievers and conquer the world.  Most just want to live in peace.

[obyknven]

"Moderate rebels" are those who started the uprising and were the main force carrying it in the beginning. After they were left out in the cold instead of getting support from outside (like the West), they were crushed between Assad's forces and the Islamic groups (pre-ISIS mainly backed by the oil monarchies). There were "moderate rebels" who could be called that; it's just that they've been basically annihilated since. That all opposition was Islamic from the beginning is an outright lie that Assad's consistently been trying to sell in order to present himself as the only source of stability and secularism.

FSA declaring "joint operation" with Al-Qaeda now. 

via Jenan Moussa's Twitter Page

The Free Syrian Army just went from a questionable terrorist group to outright declaring themselves as such. And you is nothing more than supporter of terrorism now.  

 

 

P.S.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2015/10/un-lavrov-presser/

 

Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia:"If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist. Right?"

[Volourn]

Too bad most don't have any power. The violent and evil ones are the ones in control. At least the evil Christians and Catholics in the West tend to be scorned and thrown in the trash. Afterall, the most public of evil western religion is most famous for  harassing people at funerals. A dickish move, of course, but at least they aren't mass murdering people.

[Zoraptor]

Heh, I wonder how often Turkey's 'airspace' is going to be violated. They've got a self declared 5 mile exclusion zone inside Syria... And of course Antioch/ Alexandretta should be Syrian territory anyway under that most sacred of institutions, international law, since Turkey occupied it from Syria then held a 'referendum' to annex it. Which sounds familiar to something that happened recently and got some people Very Upset, it's on the tip of my tongue. Kosovo! Hmm, no, that's not right, it's somewhere else. Nevermind, I'm sure it will come to me at some point.
 

No, you're wrong. None of the involved parties except possibly the Kurds thinks of ISIS as the biggest threat (Turkey is the contender to that title).

Hmm, I think in your eagerness you've made a rather obvious omission there- Iraq. While Iraq ain't Syria ISIS has considerable holdings there and is a neighbour, same as Turkey and is certainly more involved than the US or Russia.

 

Having said that, anyone with map reading skills can see why ISIS is not the primary threat to the Syrian Government, with the exception of a single suburb of Damascus they're further from all the important areas (Homs/ Hama/ Damascus/ Latakia/ Aleppo) than other rebels or JAN are, so they are the primary target in purely military logic. ISIS's main holdings are all either a long way away like Raqqa, 'behind' other rebel areas (Mandib/ Jarablus) or are simply not all that important from the government perspective (Deir ez Zor, one of the few areas where the government has consistently been gaining ground over the past year).

 

Still, if nothing else this intervention has brought the hilarity of the west in general (exc France at least) complaining about someone bombing Al Qaeda.

[Rostere]

 

No, you're wrong. None of the involved parties except possibly the Kurds thinks of ISIS as the biggest threat (Turkey is the contender to that title).

Hmm, I think in your eagerness you've made a rather obvious omission there- Iraq. While Iraq ain't Syria ISIS has considerable holdings there and is a neighbour, same as Turkey and is certainly more involved than the US or Russia.

 

Hmm, I think in your eagerness you forgot to read the rest of my post.