Agiel Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 New National Security Adviser: No Friend to Russia? Seems like a fine pick, in spite of Trump's standards at this point for the NSA choice being anyone with a pulse and isn't in a position to say "no." Whether or not he could be a sufficiently audible voice of reason over Bannon, who fancies himself an "economic nationalist" and Leninist but seems to have more in common with Radovan Karadžić, remains to be seen. Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drowsy Emperor Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes. Unfortunately Sweden hasn't updated those since 2001. "More relevant are the statistics on who's committing the crimes." Those don't tell who are committing the crimes but how probable it is from person from said demographic to be a criminal. You should also put sizes of those demographics and number of crimes they have committed as whole to show what is size of their slice in the crime pie and to see what kind statistical effects one person causes. Is this seriously the argument that you want to put forth? You have several groups of people One has 8 million people from which 5% commit crimes = 400 000 criminals Then you have second group of people that consist of 200 000 people from which 8% commit crimes = 16 000 criminals Then you have third group of people that consist of 3 000 people from which 22% commit crimes = 660 criminals Who are the people that are actually committing crimes in this equation? Like for example how much of total crimes you are able to prevent by focusing on those 3000 people that have very high probably to be criminals. 0 people from high criminality minorities = 0 crimes from said minorities you have to deal with your native population, you don't have to deal with people who just felt like crossing the border Why take in more if you don't have a handle on things to begin with? ----> https://www.rt.com/news/378071-stockholm-riots-police-shots/ Or when you use taxpayer money to fulfill insane ideological goals: ---Swedish government invites migrants ---Knows there is no housing to go around (notorious fact in Stockholm for example) ---Offers millions of tax payer money to hotel owners to house them ---Individual migrant unskilled laborer probably ends up costing more than a year's worth of a PhD's salary ---Hotel owner refuses ---Gets threats from insurance company and others Sanity? Edited February 21, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor И погибе Српски кнез Лазаре,И његова сва изгибе војска, Седамдесет и седам иљада;Све је свето и честито билоИ миломе Богу приступачно. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Also small groups have higher change to show high in relative statistics. Especially if they are some special groups that have high number of people from other demographics that have high exposure to criminal activity, like refugees, poor, etc. Refugees in theory cost quite lot money for state, but in reality amount of money that they get month to month gives them just ability to by food and pay their housing, which means that all the money that for example Finland gives to refuges comes back to state via taxes and other payments (like rents in government owned housing). Way they stress our economy don't come from how much they cost but how much money they tie in that tax loop from general economy, money that at least in theory could be tied to something else that produces more new money to our economy. Like that housing thing that you mentioned. In Finland some municipalities also house refugees in hotels but that isn't because there isn't available housing, but because those municipalities have suffered from loss of tourism and they (because of bad winters and Russian sanctions etc.) and they use together with hotel owners refugees as way to support those suffering business that would actual go out of business if they didn't have this change to house refugees. (I can't say if situation is same in Sweden, but I would not be surprised if that was the case). And then there are some municipalities that have suffered from vacation and they want those refugees centers just so that they get more people so that government needs to give them more services. In sort refugees are used as political and economical pawns by some our politician to achieve some of their goals without thinking what it would mean to bring 1000 people in town of 3000 people which then creates set of its own problems that need to be solved and what some other politicians then use to further their own political goals. But at the end refugees have turn out to be just same as everybody else, pawns on politicians gameboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? I mean there was 931 cases of rape in 2015 from which 15 was committed by refugees (according to police). Edited February 21, 2017 by Elerond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead. Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it? 1 I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Do you think it is different for rape victims if they are raped by Finnish or Swedish person? Because absolutely majority of rapes in Finland have committed by people belonging in those groups. Meaning is it more important to prevent rapes done by foreign people or rapes in general? No, but its different if you have 100 or 200 rapes. And if you can easily avoid these another 100. That is the point. If it would be that easy to avoid first 100 I would be definetely for it So sending 40k people most likely to die, to prevent 15 rapes in year is easy way to lower number of rapes? Instead of using schooling and other methods to try achieve same thing. Though luck that our constitution forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead. Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it? I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Question is how big danger those minority groups are for peace in society and truth is that small groups aren't that big deal even with high criminal activity. Sorry but tell it to the rape victims. Honestly I understand that statistics can be interpreted differently but if you go to individuals your view will change rapidly Yeah, emotion is a good place to start. Apparently there was rioting in Stockholm after a drug raid. I guess Trump was right 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. It is decided by several governmental institutes that interview every asylum seeker and check situation in their home countries. Edited February 21, 2017 by Elerond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow. not sure if I follow I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? Edited February 21, 2017 by Chilloutman I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? Governments and courts I would imagine. Various cases here where someone has argued they will face death if sent back for various reasons, ethnicity, sexuality. Did find one case funny where a Jamaican used the high crime rate - though I think that is viable. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow. not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow. not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?) I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 The biggest flaw in the notion of a free country is too many jackasses (intentionally used with double meaning) think THEY get to decide what other people are free to do. Fix'd. "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drowsy Emperor Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. It is decided by several governmental institutes that interview every asylum seeker and check situation in their home countries. That's not how it works in practice and you know it. Most of the alleged refugees aren't refugees at all, and very few of them were in any sort of immediate danger. Even the legitimate Syrian refugees from Turkish camps, while not in the most pleasant situation - are not in any sort of danger at all. They're just picking a "better option" because they can. It goes without saying that "refugees" from Iran, Kosovo, Turkey, Pakistan are not "refugees" in any sense of the word. Merely migrants hoping to pass themselves off as refugees to get on welfare. Aslyum is a provision under international law that is almost exclusively abused to get residency (and for political dissing). Its also what the current governments in Europe used to let the immigrant flood in, even though its patently obvious that most of the applicants do not fit the bill of asyulm seeker in any shape or form. Also if we're going to start dredging up moral and legal obligations, well that works both ways. The government has an obligation to take care of its citizens, and ****ing them over by dumping a mass of poor foreigners in their neighborhood goes against the spirit of any European constitution. Edited February 21, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor 2 И погибе Српски кнез Лазаре,И његова сва изгибе војска, Седамдесет и седам иљада;Све је свето и честито билоИ миломе Богу приступачно. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 It seems Trump wasn’t wrong. He just sees future: http://www.thelocal.se/20170221/swedish-press-photographer-assaulted-in-rinkeby-riots like its different anywhere else: http://www.politico.eu/article/theo-paris-riots-over-police-rape-hijack-french-campaign-racism-aulnay-sous-bois/ I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow. not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?) You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilloutman Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) Not accepting refugees = "likely sending them to die"? Oh lordy. Who decides which situations qualify for "forbids to sent anybody to situation where they most likely end up dead"? People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war. What are you talking about? There is tons of countries in Africa which are in war state. South Sudan for example is in war for years, now there is Famine crisis. Every second country in Africa is in constant turmoil... https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/famine-officially-declared-in-south-sudan/2017/02/20/e9700f60-f76a-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_video.html https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2017/Feb-20/394372-south-sudan-suffering-man-made-famine.ashx Edited February 21, 2017 by Chilloutman I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts