@sophia89: You just have that small problem of them being trapped between a dictator and a brutal terrorist group, so where is 'over there'.
As Americans continue to debate what to do about the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, this analysis attempts to estimate the costs of resettling refugees from that region in the United States. Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. Given the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States, providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East may be a more cost-effective way to help them.
Those ones. Or maybe even pay the Saudis that money to let them in temporarily since they are funding ISIS and started this whole fiasco and have more than enough room.
You know take some responsibility for the mess they made(What people are saying so the US would let Syrians in) and help the Muslims it always say it's trying to help.
Well, you may be up for winning a prize if you can get the Saudi to give a hoot about anyone but themselves... because they are more likely to pay money to avoid taking in refugees. On the other side of things, you have to ask if any of the refugees actually want to go to a place that's actually little different from the one they fled... maybe even worse because of the Saudi's very strict interpretation of Islam that often leaves immigrant workers without a head and a generally crappy human rights record.
About half of Muslims believe Sharia law should be the law of the land. One in ten approve of terrorist methods to implement Sharia law. Inviting a group of people into this country knowing that half of them will want to fundamentally change this country and a tenth will want to destroy those who resist change.
Also, has anyone noticed that there are many nations closer and more culturally similar to Syria that could take refugees? If you were a refugee, why would you want to travel further to join a society that does not speak your language and does not share your values? Why are the "refugees" fleeing into Europe overwhelmingly military aged males?
"As always Israel is dedicated to it's own survival, even if it has to lay waste to the rest of the Middle East to achieve it. An example is Bibi claiming wholeheartedly that getting rid of Saddam would stabilize the region... which has been in a state of civil war ever since, which suits Bibi nicely because it means they aren't looking at Israel.
"Hamas is only part of of the Palestinians, one Israel continues to indirectly bolster by continuing to oppress and retaliate against the Palestinians. Same as most people would be if they see their nation slowly being stolen and degraded while they themselves are pushed further and further into poverty."
The idea that Israel supported the overthrow of Sudam Hussein knowing it would throw the Middle East into chaos because they prefer the Islamic State to Hussein is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I have no doubt that Israel did want the U.S. to take out a threat to their security. Who wouldn't, but the idea that Israel had perfect foresight into the affects of these actions is just silly. If you want to blame everybody who contributed to the current situation, I'm perfectly fine with spreading some blame to Bush and Bibi, but the idiots like Obama who claimed that Iraq was stable and we could withdraw from Iraq without creating a power vacuum also shares part of the blame. Are we to believe Obama was also trying to destablize the Middle East?
Hamas is the lawfully elected represetnativs of the Palestenian people. They are not some frigne group.
If being threatened with violence somehow excuses wrong actions, then Israel having been founded right after a wave of genocide against Jews and experiencing constant threats of annihilation for the past seventy years has more than enough excuses for their wrong actions.
Personally, I think everybody is accountable for their actions. Israelis, Palestinians, Republicans and Democrats.
About half of Muslims believe Sharia law should be the law of the land. One in ten approve of terrorist methods to implement Sharia law. Inviting a group of people into this country knowing that half of them will want to fundamentally change this country and a tenth will want to destroy those who resist change.
Also, has anyone noticed that there are many nations closer and more culturally similar to Syria that could take refugees? If you were a refugee, why would you want to travel further to join a society that does not speak your language and does not share your values? Why are the "refugees" fleeing into Europe overwhelmingly military aged males?
The idea that Israel supported the overthrow of Sudam Hussein knowing it would throw the Middle East into chaos because they prefer the Islamic State to Hussein is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
I have no doubt that Israel did want the U.S. to take out a threat to their security. Who wouldn't, but the idea that Israel had perfect foresight into the affects of these actions is just silly.
If you want to blame everybody who contributed to the current situation, I'm perfectly fine with spreading some blame to Bush and Bibi, but the idiots like Obama who claimed that Iraq was stable and we could withdraw from Iraq without creating a power vacuum also shares part of the blame. Are we to believe Obama was also trying to destablize the Middle East?
Hamas is the lawfully elected represetnativs of the Palestenian people. They are not some frigne group.
If being threatened with violence somehow excuses wrong actions, then Israel having been founded right after a wave of genocide against Jews and experiencing constant threats of annihilation for the past seventy years has more than enough excuses for their wrong actions.
Personally, I think everybody is accountable for their actions. Israelis, Palestinians, Republicans and Democrats.
Do they now? So how come it's only a tiny handful of places that it is actually the law of the land?
Clearly you haven't seen the people coming into Europe if you think they are mostly military service age males. Did you really expect them to flee into the partially collapsed state of Iraq? Through it to Shia Iran who backs the guy they wanted to get rid of? Or brave first the length of the Syrian warzone, then the extensive Saudi border-control and finally the worlds largest sand desert... before realizing they've run into a Sharia-governed theocracy that also happens to be run by a small sect. Also allow me to point out that turning refugees away out of fear of terrorism, and even worse, being selective and taking only Christians, is playing right into ISIS' narrative of it being Islam vs the West. And it's not helped by thinking the people who attacked Paris were all refugees, because they weren't, nearly all of them were living in Belgium. The passport they found on one of the attackers was a fake, and you can't eliminate the option the only reason it was carried with these people was because they wanted people to think they came with the refugees.
As Bibi claimed; getting rid of Saddam would be a stabilizing factor... probably well knowing that there were noone to step into the vacuum to actually assume power and keep Iraq stable (and dictator worth decades of rule makes sure there is no one to challenge him and no alternative to him). Did he expect ISIS? Probably not, but he probably didn't mind one of his fouler neighbors not being a threat to him.
I'd argue the Mossad weren't doing their jobs properly if they thought otherwise. It's one thing the CIA getting it wrong, they don't live in that region, but the Mossad should have known pretty well who if any would be able to step up in case Saddam suddenly fell over.
See this is an argument I've seen a few times before, and it seems you are leaving out one critical detail of it; It wasn't Obama who withdrew the troops suddenly and unexpectedly, it was George Bush who made the deal that all US forces were to leave Iraq after a given amount of time. And when they did, everyone thought Iraq was mostly ok to handle themselves... which turned out to be wrong because the guy they left in charge turned out to be a sectarian nitwit who wasn't interested in the benefit of the majority of the population.
Abbas would disagree with you. Hamas is only supreme in the Gaza strip, because they mostly succeeded in driving out the more moderate PLO, and has only recently been elected into government on the West Bank thanks to the continuing deterioration of the peace process and the continued encroachment of palestinian lands through Sharon's Berlin Wall and Bibi's expanding settlements. That said, you have to remember that Hamas is not just an armed mafia, they do alot of other things that support their communities. I am not saying they are right or shouldn't be wiped out if there was a chance to do so, but the fact is that they win the Palestinians hearts and minds through other means than just speaking thunder at Israel.
Having been the victim of an attempted genocide does not permit them the free reign to try it on someone else.
But while we are on the subject: Why doesn't Isreal, who likes to see itself as a wester/democratic bastion of the Middle East take any of these refugees?
@sophia89: thats what ive been saying! help over there! Clear out huge areas of the bad guys, build a beautiful safe zone with buildings and walls and protect it with UN troups along with our fighter jets. There are poor, helpless people we need to help and the best way to do that is protect them in their homeland and when we eradicate the vermins that are radical islamists they can repopulate and thrive in the middle east.
I've been saying that too. Safe zones that are protected by the UN.
Frankly, I tend to agree with them. I think that welcoming refugee from Syria in US wouldn't be practical. It would be a good intention, but not really worth the gesture.
But there's some problems :
1.First, the russia, who support Bachar El-Assad, who's not that good and benevolent leader. But the russia will object at the intervention of the UN, as I suspect the China will do.
2.The question of the afterwar management, which the USA are historically bad at. (Not that the french are that better now that there deeply involved, for what it's worth.)
Yes, in a organized way. While it's true that they from Syria, what isn't true is that everyone in that country is a terrorist. Not surprisingly and unfortunately, that's exactly what the far right thinks of Syria and they're treating Syrian refugees just the same as Trump treats Mexicans.
As Americans continue to debate what to do about the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, this analysis attempts to estimate the costs of resettling refugees from that region in the United States. Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. Given the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States, providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East may be a more cost-effective way to help them.
Among the findings of this analysis:
On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria.
For what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years, or 61 refugees can be helped for one year.
UNHCR reports a gap of $2.5 billion in funding that it needs to care for approximately four million Syrians in neighboring countries.
The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap.
The five-year costs of resettlement in the United States include $9,230 spent by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within HHS and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) within the State Department in the first year, as well as $55,139 in expenditures on welfare and education.
Very heavy use of welfare programs by Middle Eastern refugees, and the fact that they have only 10.5 years of education on average, makes it likely that it will be many years, if ever, before this population will cease to be a net fiscal drain on public coffers — using more in public services than they pay in taxes.
It is worth adding that ORR often reports that most refugees are self-sufficient within five years. However, ORR defines "self-sufficiency" as not receiving cash welfare. A household is still considered "self-sufficient" even if it is using any number of non-cash programs such as food stamps, public housing, or Medicaid.
Refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons, not because they are supposed to be self-sufficient, so the drain on public coffers that Middle Eastern refugees create is expected. However, given limited resources, the high cost of resettlement in the United States means careful consideration should be given to alternatives to resettlement if the goal is the help as many people possible.
I think this completely settles this.
We can help them a-lot more over there, than here.
@sophia89 Seems pretty squared away on her info here. I'm all for accepting refugees if we NEED to, but at this point we DON'T need to, more pressure should be put on Saudi Arabia to start taking in refugees. They have the money, which we, and especially the UN can assist with. The resources, and the manpower to accept and deal with the refugees. Security could be an issue A. If the SA doesn't overly want to protect them B. If the UN actually votes to get it's act together and actually fields a force that they won't take away because the member nations get into a pissing contest. C. If SA even allows a UN force into their country. So, as usual, big mess...but this is a good way to start trying to unravel it. A joint Arabian force to stomp the crap out of Daesh would be better though.
As Americans continue to debate what to do about the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East, this analysis attempts to estimate the costs of resettling refugees from that region in the United States. Although we do not consider all costs, our best estimate is that in their first five years in the United States each refugee from the Middle East costs taxpayers $64,370 — 12 times what the UN estimates it costs to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. Costs also include processing refugees, assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities. Given the high costs of resettling refugees in the United States, providing for them in neighboring countries in the Middle East may be a more cost-effective way to help them.
Among the findings of this analysis:
On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria.
For what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years, or 61 refugees can be helped for one year.
UNHCR reports a gap of $2.5 billion in funding that it needs to care for approximately four million Syrians in neighboring countries.
The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap.
The five-year costs of resettlement in the United States include $9,230 spent by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within HHS and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) within the State Department in the first year, as well as $55,139 in expenditures on welfare and education.
Very heavy use of welfare programs by Middle Eastern refugees, and the fact that they have only 10.5 years of education on average, makes it likely that it will be many years, if ever, before this population will cease to be a net fiscal drain on public coffers — using more in public services than they pay in taxes.
It is worth adding that ORR often reports that most refugees are self-sufficient within five years. However, ORR defines "self-sufficiency" as not receiving cash welfare. A household is still considered "self-sufficient" even if it is using any number of non-cash programs such as food stamps, public housing, or Medicaid.
Refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons, not because they are supposed to be self-sufficient, so the drain on public coffers that Middle Eastern refugees create is expected. However, given limited resources, the high cost of resettlement in the United States means careful consideration should be given to alternatives to resettlement if the goal is the help as many people possible.
I think this completely settles this.
We can help them a-lot more over there, than here.
One of the exceptions to the immigration laws, in relation to immigrants who don't have all the rights to remain in the United States, is presenting evidence that you would be persecuted, if returned. Of the refugees, the only group among the refugees who are persecuted region wide are the Christians; the Muslim refugees could easily be resettled somewhere in that region, but, the Christians could not (e.g. about the only place in the region where Christians would have normal human rights and freedoms might be Israel, maybe Jordan, as an alternative); that was the reason for my comments. ISIS is a momentary exception, so, as Muslim refugees, we'd really be making usual adjustments for them; as a persecuted group in practically that entire region, the Christians actually have a right to immigrate into the United States, if they could somehow get to our boarders. Because persecution in that region is based on religion, religion should be a litmus test in the United States for resettlement and vetting purposes.
Thus, this refugee crisis could be resolved by forcing Saudi Arabia's hand for so many Muslim immigrants, until the threat of ISIS and similar terrorist groups in the region could be destroyed and eliminated.
Also, I agree that the United States needs to focus a lot more on the many impoverished citizens already in this country whether than meddling in the affairs of other countries so much; the government has completely dismissed the suffering in the United States and totally turned its attention on the affairs of others, while also trying to remove all of the educational and job opportunities away from the impoverished and unemployed among its own citizens and giving those opportunities to imports; appearing to help people where it is needed is really quite disingenuous, since the impoverished are left suffering in the United States.
We can always leave the area alone, they will have a change of hear in a second or will get overthrown by one of the countries around them that sees how much they care for them.
They don't even have to take a single refugee or pay a cent, western countries can pay and Turkey(For example)can have the refugees till the area is safe.
I brought SA and co because it would make more sense for them to go there than come here. SA doesn't mind extreme terrorists so they don't have to worry about them sneaking in.
The ones that want Sharia law or think ISIS is fine can go there.
Ones that are moderate can go to Egypt, Turkey, and Iraq countries that are already taking them in.
And yet we trust them to call human rights violations, kinda tragically Ironic.
Wait... you think Saudi-Arabia is just going to fall over one day? Ehh... no, the Saudi is one of 2 regional superpowers, the other is their bitter rivals in Iran, which is why the US is so soft on them. Also, Saudi-Arabia is sitting on the largest oil reserves in the world, and whenever they decide to turn that tap or not has a huge effect on the rest of the world... like their keeping on pumping and driving the prices down was the reason the Soviet Union fell apart, and people in certain places are hoping the same will happen with Putins Russia.
Thats what European leaders are currently trying... the problem is that Erogan in Turkey isn't exactly the most reasonable or disirable person to talk to... since he is slowly dragging his nation into the sump of personality cults, single party rule and rising religious influence in politics.
And see thats were you are mistaken, they do mind, because the branch of Islam that the Saudi royal family follows and have generally imposed on the rest, is exclusive to them and not something you'd flee towards unless you were already deeply religious yet willing to embrace their interpretation... like Idi Amin did. Plus the Saudi's and other gulf states generally have no interest in people who are needy and who they can't put to work like they do the thousands of workers from India, Pakistan and Bagladesh who get exploited like nothing else.
If they thought it was fine, they wouldn't have left in the first place.
Where there in most cases isn't a capacity to actually sustain them because they come in the numbers they do.
The US, as far as I see it, generally look past whatever the Saudi are doing because they need to stay friendly with them in hopes it will be enough curb Iran's potential desire for expansion, same reason why Saddam was allowed to remain for as long as he did.
@xaos: Oh please, you're saying they selectively showed footage of immigrants? Give me a break. What do you think they cut the footage of the refugees helping little old ladies cross the street? Video evidence (and the factual statistic evidence provided in the video) does not lie. I'm just happy that when these degenerates try that in the U.S. we will at least have guns to put them in their place.
All the montage show sign that it's been designed to summon an emotional response by the viewer and to make him feel threathened. There's no real perspective, no questioning unless it support the main statement. And the title is sooooo subtile and insightful in his approach.
And don't let me begin with the source... neo nazi ? Really ?
@xaos: you think that video is mostly fake or cherry picked? God damn I don't think there's anything that can wake up other than a jihadist slitting your throat. Let's hope rational people can stop that before it happens
@xaos: Again, video evidence doesn't lie and there is A LOT of it. So you can't argue, "that was an isolated incident.. blah blah that rarely happens," based on the vast amounts of footage shown it is clear that that happens everywhere where immigrants are taken in en masse. Who cares what the source is? Does that make any of the stats falsified? Does that make any of the footage less real? No. You want to let in millions of savages like that? Invite them all into your home or your community, not mine. People take this humanitarian garbage way too far. If you love refugees so much go live in Germany where people who criticize it are jailed and where they force these people into German people's homes.
Again, video evidence doesn't lie and there is A LOT of it.
It's a statement at the very best. There's friction of course, all people who came from Syria aren't good people, but it is so anywhere else.
Who cares what the source is?
Ok, so if source are irrelevant, I guess that we can believe all the EI is saying is real and that make you the great satan of the world ? Good job you've just ruined your own credibility !
The problem is that your video is coming from people who are claiming urbi et orbi that muslim, non christian and non european foreigner are eeeviiil. You can believe them, but that doesn't make it a truth, anyway. So excuse me if this clumsy attempt to frightining me is making me laugh.
If you love refugees so much go live in Germany where people who criticize it are jailed and where they force these people into German people's homes.
So I guess that by those words you aren't german, then. Here's my advice to you : you should stop sticking only with far-rightist web site.
I want to say yes due to personal bias in my family where they were forced to come here illegally to become legal citizen by amnesty, due to a war help fuel by the US that kill many people in El Salvador. Sound familiar?
It's a statement at the very best. There's friction of course, all people who came from Syria aren't good people, but it is so anywhere else.
Lmfao it's a statement at best? Can you count how many different clips they used of refugees being savages? I seriously lost count. They had to have used at least dozens of different examples. Friction is beyond an understatement. They aren't just biting the hand that is feeding them. They are biting it off, tearing it to pieces, and then looking for more hands to decimate.
Ok, so if source are irrelevant, I guess that we can believe all the EI is saying is real and that make you the great satan of the world ? Good job you've just ruined your own credibility !
No it didn't. If a prominent black panther member with a violent past happens to video tape a cop shooting an unarmed man in cold blood, does that make the footage itself irrelevant because of who put the video together? No. The cop still killed an unarmed man and the proof doesn't change. The footage itself is what's important. You are completely missing the entire point of the video and trying to discredit it because, "ohhh emmm geee! it was creeayted by neo-nazees! Eeeep!"
The problem is that your video is coming from people who are claiming urbi et orbi that muslim, non christian and non european foreigner are eeeviiil. You can believe them, but that doesn't make it a truth, anyway. So excuse me if this clumsy attempt to frightining me is making me laugh.
What you are saying is the equivalent of if a Jehovah's Witness decided to film/compile evidence of Jewish people being killed in a concentration camp and then showing it to a Holocaust denier and then they claim, "herp derp it was creeated by a jehova witniss he has agenduh the f00tage es not reel haha i not fall 4 it". No one is claiming in the video that all Muslims are evil or that all refugees are that way, HOWEVER, the footage does show that a lot of them are causing trouble. Can you deny that? Of course not, but you won't admit it. You'll just resort to ad hominem.
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero
So I guess that by those words you aren't german, then. Here's my advice to you : you should stop sticking only with far-rightist web site.
If I was German I'd have been put in jail by someone like you for just thinking about criticizing these morons. My advice for you, stop sticking with far left websites that say all refugees and immigrants are innocent little treasures that desperately need and want our help.
people should try to find a good place to live in peace,but that doesn't mean they have to go to the most developed countries (not to mention U.S and Europe are full of people already).
Latin America and Oceania has a enough space for them to hide,and it doesn't look like a horrible place to live.
people should try to find a good place to live in peace,but that doesn't mean they have to go to the most developed countries (not to mention U.S and Europe are full of people already).
Latin America and Oceania has a enough space for them to hide,and it doesn't look like a horrible place to live.
Its still in the Americas though.
It seems refugees have just about nowhere to go.
The trouble is in screening for the very small number terrorists who are in the the midst of the refugees who are not terrorist.
@sophia89: To be honest, I had no idea who /pol/ even was. It was my fault for assuming that he actually knew what he was talking about when calling them Neo-Nazis. Thanks for explaining the distinction.
Ok so in that region there are 4 superpowers in it
Israel, large gap, Egypt, Iran, Turkey. The rest at best can only defend themselves from an invasion.
Any of the 4 above can invade and take over SA just as fast as Saddam did with Kuwait, the only thing saving SA is the fact that Islam says not to fight there and the US protecting them.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha at superpower.
3. No, they are soft on them because of black gold.
4. I don't think you're reading my whole posts, I didn't say everything single refugee, in fact I even said they don't have to take any, there are other Islamic countries that are taking them however they lack the funds to care for more than what they already have.
5. It's called Sharia law and it's the worst governing system, however some like it and want to impose it. So again if any refugee is pro SL and SA opened it's doors they would be happy there.
6. You don't have to keep telling me, I posted about that many times before. However that harsh treatement is fine under SL, so if someone is ok with it then they won't mind getting treated like that.
7. Well in western countries having sex and marrying children is illegal, but a-lot of the refugees are coming married to 10, 11, and 12 years old girls and western countries are bending backwards for that, why should a western country change a law that protects children than SA changing a disgusting law system?
8. So we help by funding those areas. Again you're not reading my posts. That was my original point. For each refugee we can help here 12 could have been helped over there.
Trust me if Iran wanted SA and America wasn't standing in it's way it would have it. The second Iran gets a nuke they will expand(Not because they will use it on countries they want, but because they will know Israel, USA and co, Egypt, and Turkey won't mess with a nuclear backed country).
So you think if the US looks away they come running after you with apologies? Thats not going to happen.
Apparently you've never seen a map of the ME. And no Egypt and Israel are not superpowers, they have strong armies, both provided by the US, but neither have the clout to really do anything. And Saddam invading Kuwait... yeah like thats a good comparison
That too. But the primary reason is to back the other guy whom Iran doesn't get along with.
By the map provided above (take a good look at it for post 2), take notice of what they have to go through to get there and ask yourself why the Saudi would pay anyone for something they are already forced to do?
Thats only part of it. I was referring to that they generally lean towards a branch called Wahhabi... which has been described as Islams answer to puritan Christianity. And if a refugee was pro ISIS or w/e, he wouldn't be running to begin with.
It's different when you suddenly have to conform to someone elses wild and random interpretations of the same book. ISIS reads the Quran exactly they way they want it to justify their actions, they wont be allowed the same kind of freedom in SA... where such things carry harsh penalties.
Are they now? I'd like you to prove that for starters. The other thing is that such relationships don't need to be recognized even if they exist and they can still go to jail if they break in laws like sleeping with a minor.
Yes, you are proposing we pay already broken and failed states to keep them where they are; in poverty, no hope of any meaningful future and on the edge of a warzone that might just expand to their neck of the woods at any given time. Think these things through.
... You actually think Iran is that stupid they'd kill themselves with the drop of a hat? They've lasted 40 years now under the current regime without having a nuke while both Israel and the US have theirs squarely aimed at them, they aren't likely to change policy anytime soon as long as those weapons are pointed at them. Also you have to consider that neither Egypt or Turkey will intervene regardless because Iran running over Iraq or Syria means nothing to them, and as long as Iran doesn't move against either, they will just look the other way. And I think you severely underestimate what Saudi-Arabia is capable of militarily since they have an active force of about 200.000, which makes it one of the biggest in the region, though only half the size of Iran's and Egypts armed forces.
Seriously, the poster of the video is surely a far rightist at the very least.
Just look at the first comment. It's their basic rhetoric : "Islamist terrorist are taking advantage of refugee to invade create havoc." Quoting the attack of Paris. Too bad the terrorist were all born in France and Belgium and didn't need any refugee at all to enter europe, as they already had the right to enter.
The rest is just garbage : fast montage with imae either taken out of context or closing on the negatives one to create fear. (My "favorite" is the one with black people shouting and looking angry...). Old statements about natality that got debunked a looooong time ago. Then add some horrible crime to make it look like the refugee that did it, but not solid proof.
Oh, and I love the russian guy ! Yuri Bezmenov : that guy IS DEAD SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES and this document try to make it look like it's present. And the guy worked for the KGB. An institution whose ability to plant spy and dissenters is quite legendary.
When I said you were cute. It's not mating ritual, you know, it's more like those people who try to attempt CPR without basic knowledge to do it properly. It's coming from good intention, but ultimately messy and hurtful for those it attempt to save. But send me a real life pic, maybe I would change my mind.
(But it's funny from you to see you use a sociopathic character to illustrate your feelings. )
Seriously, the poster of the video is surely a far rightist at the very least.
Just look at the first comment. It's their basic rhetoric : "Islamist terrorist are taking advantage of refugee to invade create havoc." Quoting the attack of Paris. Too bad the terrorist were all born in France and Belgium and didn't need any refugee at all to enter europe, as they already had the right to enter.
It is confirmed that two of them came from Greece (via the refugee immigration B.S.). Again, ad hominem circumstantial. Just because the user is a "right winger" it doesn't make the source any less true or reliable. If you posted a far left wing article that'd be just fine wouldn't it?
The rest is just garbage : fast montage with imae either taken out of context or closing on the negatives one to create fear. (My "favorite" is the one with black people shouting and looking angry...). Old statements about natality that got debunked a looooong time ago. Then add some horrible crime to make it look like the refugee that did it, but not solid proof.
How is footage of refugees committing crime en masse out of context? I guess all of the white people walking by and minding their own business actually provoked them. It was likely their white privilege. How dare they make eye contact with refugee immigrants. They need to keep their heads down or bow to the refugees so their white privilege doesn't offend them.
Oh, and I love the russian guy ! Yuri Bezmenov : that guy IS DEAD SINCE THE EARLY NINETIES and this document try to make it look like it's present. And the guy worked for the KGB. An institution whose ability to plant spy and dissenters is quite legendary.
Do you have any evidence that they tried to make it look "present"? Do his statements become less true just because they are from the past? You are a terrible debater. You use fallacy after fallacy in a pathetic attempt to discredit things. You just can't handle the truth about how poisonous it is to take in so many of these people and you can't disprove my stance without attacking the source. Again, for the 5th time, footage. Does. Not. Lie. Go ahead and try to discredit every single clip of violent immigrants that they used. That'd be quite a sight.
When I said you were cute. It's not mating ritual, you know, it's more like those people who try to attempt CPR without basic knowledge to do it properly. It's coming from good intention, but ultimately messy and hurtful for those it attempt to save. But send me a real life pic, maybe I would change my mind.
It is confirmed that two of them came from Greece (via the refugee immigration B.S.). Again, ad hominem circumstantial. Just because the user is a "right winger" it doesn't make the source any less true or reliable. If you posted a far left wing article that'd be just fine wouldn't it?
Source please ? Because I've only see one unidentified guy... who came by airplane with a Syrian valid passport. I don't think he would have been stopped anyway.
How is footage of refugees committing crime en masse out of context? I guess all of the white people walking by and minding their own business actually provoked them. It was likely their white privilege. How dare they make eye contact with refugee immigrants. They need to keep their heads down or bow to the refugees so their white privilege doesn't offend them.
Fail. Your little documentary of your show what, three, maybe four crimes, and only succeed at implying that they are made by refugee. True enough, the footage are impressive, but that's why they have been chosen : to scare people. Notice how they don't have any date nor place. The mainstream media use those methods too when they have nothing to show, so I guess that's their most forgivable sin... maybe ? All the rest of your answer is thus just irrelevant but just show a lot of racial paranoïa.
Do you have any evidence that they tried to make it look "present"? Do his statements become less true just because they are from the past? You are a terrible debater. You use fallacy after fallacy in a pathetic attempt to discredit things. You just can't handle the truth about how poisonous it is to take in so many of these people and you can't disprove my stance without attacking the source. Again, for the 5th time, footage. Does. Not. Lie. Go ahead and try to discredit every single clip of violent immigrants that they used. That'd be quite a sight.
Once again, no date nor place are indicated, why ? Because it seem to make it relevant. Footage do not do the lie, but how they're used out of context do the deed. I do not know about my quality as a debater but after this display of insulting people, it show that you're hardly the best to judge that.
1. What? I don't think you're reading what I'm posting at all.
2. What?
3. What?
4. What?
5.
Some obviously do.
6. Isis believes in the wahabbist version of Islam, which is why SA is funding them.
7. Not really sure what is the point of posting a link for you when you don't seem to read my posts fully.
8. Ah ok so you don't want to help people running from war find a safe place, you want to help poor people find a better future. Questions: Why not help our own first then if we still have enough help others? We have homeless people you know. And if we don't give a shit about people here and have to help foreigners then why Syrians? Why not African children who starve to them? Why not help poor countries climb out of their financial crisis so they can help themselves and those around them?
And finally
WHY HELP A SYRIAN REFUGEE HAVE BETTER LIFE HERE, WHEN WE CAN SAVE 12 FOR THE SAME PRICE OVER THERE? WHO GETS TO PICK THE ONES THAT WILL COME HERE AND WHY THOSE ONES ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES THAT WILL BE LEFT?
9. Yeah if they have nukes they don't have to worry about other countries sticking it's nose for no reason(That means USA), and again you keep thinking having oil and money makes you superpower, by that retarded logic SA is stronger than USA and Russia. The SA military is known for it's lack of training and for it's corruption.
I'm done talking to you like last time you are an incredibly ignorant person, hopefully this last bit will crack your thick skull and reach your brain:
The price of a single refugee coming here and simply living is the same price for 12 refugees being helped over there. And by over there I don't mean SA, I mean countries like Turkey and Egypt 2 moderate countries that already accept refugees. And no coming here won't automatically make them rich or even middle class.
I am, I just don't think you understand what it is you are suggesting.
Read
Read
Read again
Yes, hurra, there are always extremists. Plus those don't appear to be refugees, they look more like maladjusted youths, you have plenty of those as well, they are just called gangs.
ISIS don't believe in any particualr version of Islam because they are cherry picking passages and reading them as they need to justify what they are doing. Egypt for instance is a predominantly Sunni Islamic nation, and they are the seat of scholars into how to read the Quran and they completely denounce how ISIS reads it. There are ofc passages within it that can be read to mean what ISIS wants, but then again the Bible contains passages that would mean the death of people who had either slept with an animal or 'performed witchcraft'.
Or because your link leads to some hogwash site I'd immediately take a massive piss on for being biased?
If you aren't already, that just marks you out as a nation of very poor standards. But I am pretty sure you are already trying to help your own, but as the self-titled 'greatest nation in the world' others kinda expect you to also be able to help these people... who tend to be running away from wars you started. Why not help them over there? Imagine living in a refugee camp in the middle of a desert? perhaps you'd like to try and explain to them why they on top of everything else have to be victims of your cost-saving maneuvers? Plus you are the 3rd biggest country in the world, so it's not like you are struggling for space.
Don't call me a retard, because I will flag you for it. Secondly, you may want to take a course in economy, that way you would know why the Soviet Union collapsed and why it's so interesting to watch how the oil price develops and how badly it affects Putins dreams of reestablishing Russia as a proper superpower. As for who is a superpower and who is not, it is not exclusively based on how many guns and bombs they have, otherwise North Korea would be one, the Saudi throw their weight around with their oil, and often it's just more effective than a staring contest.
I'd advise you not to call anyone ignorant when you yourself come across as a person of both little to no knowledge and your head lodged up your own ass. But I will continue to school your ignorance whenever you dare to enter a debate when a functioning brain is required, because you badly need one.
Source please ? Because I've only see one unidentified guy... who came by airplane with a Syrian valid passport. I don't think he would have been stopped anyway.
Fail. Your little documentary of your show what, three, maybe four crimes, and only succeed at implying that they are made by refugee. True enough, the footage are impressive, but that's why they have been chosen : to scare people. Notice how they don't have any date nor place. The mainstream media use those methods too when they have nothing to show, so I guess that's their most forgivable sin... maybe ? All the rest of your answer is thus just irrelevant but just show a lot of racial paranoïa.
You are the one making the claim that these "three or four crimes" (lmfao, right) of clips were taken out of context or had false dates on them. Since you made the claim, prove it. Racial paranoia? Right, even you admitted that the difference in cultures and settings will cause friction. It has nothing to do with brown or Muslim people inherently being violent or anything racist like you are implying I am. It's that friction that's causing them to behave that way, so why are they still here again? We haven't even gotten into the case of terrorists sneaking in among these savages to commit acts of terror.
Once again, no date nor place are indicated, why ? Because it seem to make it relevant. Footage do not do the lie, but how they're used out of context do the deed. I do not know about my quality as a debater but after this display of insulting people, it show that you're hardly the best to judge that.
Not showing dates or information isn't reason enough to assume that the footage isn't credible. You aren't debating well (in my opinion), because you are nitpicking tiny little things to support your argument that most refugees are little angels that just want help. A lot of evidence disagrees with you and the only way to debate against those facts is to try and discredit them via ad hominem circumstantial. Just because it comes from a source that you don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't true. That'd be like if Hitler said "the sun is hot" and people try to refute that claim b/c Hitler is an evil Nazi.
Really not the same. Source criticism would be if someone wrote an article as factual information about an eyewitness testimony and the eyewitness was extremely biased. How can you criticize something that we can all see with our own eyes? How can you criticize mainstream studies about rapes and crimes going up and that the perpetrators are refugees? How can you refute the fact that, since these stupid libtard governments don't want to be politically incorrect, they are just giving some refugees community service after finding them guilty of rape?
Never said you were one, just that you were funny. :D
LOL you said I had sociopathic character. Either way, I don't see that as an insult to be honest.
The jewish laws were just as savage as Islam laws were. Here's a sample of Jewish laws that are barbaric. They kill you for sinning even though EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS A SINNER AT BIRTH.
Killed for having a different religion:
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19
BURNED ALIVE for having sex before marriage. Hitler burned people alive
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9
For cursing at your parents. Not hitting them or trying to kill them. Just saying words
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9
Kill Gay people
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13
Killing people for working on the sabbath(no one is hurt if you work on the sabbath but it deserves death)
anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers;
Kill children for the sins of the father
Islam says that it is protecting it's culture and way of life from outside influences. That is the same thing that the OT says. The OT had no problem stoning and burning people. Even the Quran speaks against those forms of killing. In conclusion, both groups punish people for being human and being sinners even though we are born sinners. I understand that some form of punishment is due(in some of these cases no punishment is needed) but death is to much. The OT laws are petty and the penalty is far to extreme
“The jewish laws were just as savage as Islam laws were. Here's a sample of Jewish laws that are barbaric. They kill you for sinning even though EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS A SINNER AT BIRTH.”
The Jewish Laws are not savage. As said before, just because laws were made in various human societies without Biblical input over time does not make the Jewish Laws savage, cruel, evil, or wrong. And again, Judaism has an atonement portion to it, being the product of an absolute good, merciful, and just God, while Islam does not, making Judaism immensely more compassionate and reasonable; thus, if the Jews, as a people, decided to ignore the atonement portion of the Laws, it was them who became cruel and obstinate after a time, not the Laws laid down by God. Again, although the Laws allow for a penalty of death, they also allow for atonement; the penally component of the Laws is intended for the unrepentant and remorseless, see Isaiah 1:13-17
“Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19”
The verse you quoted is concerning bestiality and is misquoted.
“BURNED ALIVE for having sex before marriage. Hitler burned people alive
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9”
A priest is different from a common person and have higher standards to live by and uphold. Jewish Law predated Hitler by thousands of years, while God knows the heart whereas man does not. This verse is in reference to prostitution not fornication, another misquote of scripture. The remedy is Leviticus 1:3 and her response for being forgiven of God is Leviticus 2:2. Further, if it is done unintentional, the priest would have to present the sin offering instead of carrying out the penalty, see Leviticus 4:2-3; the priest’s daughter can than respond with a guilt offering, Leviticus 5:16; although being prostitution is a sin, doing it as the daughter of a priest and knowing that is especially dishonors God, as such, could definitely be unintentional.
“For cursing at your parents. Not hitting them or trying to kill them. Just saying words
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9”
You just quoted the previous verse again, which had to do with the daughter of a priest becoming to be a prostitute.
“Islam says that it is protecting it's culture and way of life from outside influences. That is the same thing that the OT says.”
It’s not the same because the Old Testament is about the Jews quarantining their culture from everyone else, while Islam is clearly about imposing its believe system on others. The Old Testament is also about atonement while Islam could be looked at as being about striping away the perpetual atonement of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins on the Cross.
“The OT had no problem stoning and burning people. Even the Quran speaks against those forms of killing.”
If what you’re saying is true, why is it that both mainstream Islam societies and extremist Islam societies practice stoning? Someone just posted a thread depicting a woman being stoned in Afghanistan not too long ago, and stoning very common is Saudi Arabia. Because Islam lacks an atonement component to it while Judaism has an atonement component, stoning and burning someone alive was probably very rare and they are not practiced in Jewish society in modern times or in recent memory; while Stephen was stoned, Jesus spoke against those Jews as obstinate because they were being too strict and not practicing atonement; this is 2000 years before modern day Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We see the difference of two worlds from reality and your mind, one an imagined level of strictness and unreasonableness compared to a real level of strictness and unreasonableness; one teaches morality and the way to live a good life while to other requires you to live a strict and unreasonable way of life.
“In conclusion, both groups punish people for being human and being sinners even though we are born sinners.”
Judaism can require you to be punished, if you have a certain character, while it offers you atonement, if you don’t have certain, specifically specified character traits. Islam, on the other hand, does require punishment, since atonement is lacking or greatly diminished.
Your misrepresentation of the Old Testament has caused you to falsely consider the Laws petty and going too far; it's people who are Jews who can use the penalty portion of the Laws to become petty and go too far. Or again, to forget the atonement portions of the Law.
@dshipp17: another reason to argue the Old Testament Laws were not so unreasonable and strict was because the Jews also had a way to exercise mercy with a blood sacrifice, something absent in Islam
This is false also. There was a case where an adulterous women in Islam was punished but not killed. A case where a women renounced her faith and they gave her a chance to come back. She didn't so they exiled her. Two gay men were not killed but beaten. So Islam does not always kill for breaking the law either. and no innocent animals had to be killed so these people could stay alive
That's not false at all, because, I'd need to ask, based on what part of the Quran or Hadith were punishment not carried out in these rare instances, where I see decisions such as these to be rarely, if ever, the case in either the mainstream or extreme areas where Islam is practiced and influences the government, whereas, I'd know why they were not carried out in accordance with the atonement portions of the Old Testament Laws; to the contrary, I'd ask why were they carried out, considering the call for atonement in the Old Testament.
Oh, I see you've found an excuse to let hundred of thousand people die at the hand of people you despise. Congratulation, you must be proud ! Beside of that, It's entertaining to me that you have the naivety to think that the abscence of one or two terrorists would have prevented the attack.
You are the one making the claim that these "three or four crimes" (lmfao, right) of clips were taken out of context or had false dates on them. Since you made the claim, prove it. Racial paranoia? Right, even you admitted that the difference in cultures and settings will cause friction. It has nothing to do with brown or Muslim people inherently being violent or anything racist like you are implying I am. It's that friction that's causing them to behave that way, so why are they still here again? We haven't even gotten into the case of terrorists sneaking in among these savages to commit acts of terror.
You take the things in the wrong way, or rather, the way it suit you the most. It's not me that have something to prove. It's the video that fail to prove to be relevant and not biased. Sorry. You made it yourself racial the moment you wroted those words :
How dare they make eye contact with refugee immigrants. They need to keep their heads down or bow to the refugees so their white privilege doesn't offend them.
You're implying them the victims were attacked because they were white... and...
We haven't even gotten into the case of terrorists sneaking in among these savages to commit acts of terror.
...You called all the refugees "savages" without any distinction. If you begin to sink yourself, it won't gonna help your case. :/
Not showing dates or information isn't reason enough to assume that the footage isn't credible. You aren't debating well (in my opinion), because you are nitpicking tiny little things to support your argument that most refugees are little angels that just want help. A lot of evidence disagrees with you and the only way to debate against those facts is to try and discredit them via ad hominem circumstantial. Just because it comes from a source that you don't like, that doesn't mean it isn't true. That'd be like if Hitler said "the sun is hot" and people try to refute that claim b/c Hitler is an evil Nazi.
Ok, we get, you learned an latin expression lately and will abuse it to the core. XD
Now more seriously, the problem with your "ad hominem circumstantial" argument lay in the fact that you seek answer to people who doesn't have any interest in saying the truth. It's not Hitler sayin "the sun is hot", it's more like "Hitler say the jews and america are evil.". As my debater skill, I wouldn't care less, because if I found your arguments founded, we would have a very different conversation.
Really not the same. Source criticism would be if someone wrote an article as factual information about an eyewitness testimony and the eyewitness was extremely biased. How can you criticize something that we can all see with our own eyes? How can you criticize mainstream studies about rapes and crimes going up and that the perpetrators are refugees? How can you refute the fact that, since these stupid libtard governments don't want to be politically incorrect, they are just giving some refugees community service after finding them guilty of rape?
Amusing. So you believe David Copperfield really use magick to make disappear the statue of liberty ?
I critisize the video you posted because I'm familiar with cinematography and television technics and your obviously not. You see things and accept without questionning it because you were ready to do so. Cuts, montage, perspective all those technics can be used against you in making you believe false things.
In example, let's take the sequence between 8:05 and 8:31. We see the girl in red nodding saddly and negatively to a protest march of fundamentalist march, saying "she hasn't seen anything from this scale" but by two times, we can already see two times the same frames. The camera shooting is close to the protestor, to create the illusion of a massive people. However, we see people on a bridge higher. Why didn't they take the shoot from there ? We could have seen how many they really were. Freeze it, and you will see the protestor are quite sparse in fact. But the statement of the woman and the speed of the sequence make any thinking and analysis difficult without rewinding and that's exaclty the purpose of that. I will also point the clumsy attempt to amalgam the refugee with some Pakistanese child rapist gang and other angry black man... and you began to see the credibility of this failing apart, and I could do the same with all the video.
You try to put words in my mouths by saying I think the refugee are all angels while I never said that. What I say, is that they are human being, just like us, and there is bad people everywhere.
LOL you said I had sociopathic character. Either way, I don't see that as an insult to be honest.
Aaand lastly... since you're obviously tend to read what you want to read... this is what I actually wrote :
(But it's funny from you to see you use a sociopathic character to illustrate your feelings. )
So, since you have trouble to understand or read correctly, I reiterate : I said you used a sociopathic character. But reassure you, aren't smart enough to be even a low functionning sociopath and the tough you enjoy being treated as such make it even funnier. :D
Oh, I see you've found an excuse to let hundred of thousand people die at the hand of people you despise. Congratulation, you must be proud ! Beside of that, It's entertaining to me that you have the naivety to think that the abscence of one or two terrorists would have prevented the attack.
A guilt trip isn't going to work on me. One or two as far as we know. If they caught the rest I'm sure you'd find they entered via that stupid refugee policy where we let in thousands of people without vetting them. And you call me naive. Lmao. It's not naive to refuse to do background checks on people from a foreign land before they enter? It's not naive to assume that they aren't threats b/c that might be racist? I think the word you are looking for isn't naive in that situation. It's ret@rded.
You take the things in the wrong way, or rather, the way it suit you the most. It's not me that have something to prove. It's the video that fail to prove to be relevant and not biased. Sorry. You made it yourself racial the moment you wroted those words. You're implying them the victims were attacked because they were white... and...
Bias doesn't mean sh!t. Also. you are trying to divert attention from my point by bringing up racial nonsense. Facts don't lie. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6527/migrants-rape-germany. What is your explanation for this? Another biased source? Maybe they fudged the numbers?
...You called all the refugees "savages" without any distinction. If you begin to sink yourself, it won't gonna help your case. :/
Okay.
Ok, we get, you learned an latin expression lately and will abuse it to the core. XD Now more seriously, the problem with your "ad hominem circumstantial" argument lay in the fact that you seek answer to people who doesn't have any interest in saying the truth. It's not Hitler sayin "the sun is hot", it's more like "Hitler say the jews and america are evil.". As my debater skill, I wouldn't care less, because if I found your arguments founded, we would have a very different conversation.
Wow, what a terrible analogy. "this es lyk teh sayme ting as when hitler be racist to jews!1!". Ummm... No it isn't? You are claiming that the footage is a lie and that we shouldn't trust it because the creators are "neo-Nazis" (ironically, without even proving that they are in fact neo-Nazis, lmfao). How many times do I have to repeat the fact that footage doesn't lie? If someone posts compilations of refugees causing mayhem you can't just point your finger at that video evidence and call it a fabrication lmao. It doesn't work like that.
Amusing. So you believe David Copperfield really use magick to make disappear the statue of liberty?
Ohhh wow! I never thought of it like that!!! They used advanced computer technology to make the refugees look like they were attacking and pillaging! They weren't actually doing any of it! It's just computer effects. Such a great comparison.
I critisize the video you posted because I'm familiar with cinematography and television technics and your obviously not. You see things and accept without questionning it because you were ready to do so. Cuts, montage, perspective all those technics can be used against you in making you believe false things.
K, whatever you say. You're right. They just compiled footage of brown people from different countries causing havok and labeled it as refugees. All of those cases were simply Muslims from different nations protesting over different things from many years ago? If only there was proof to back that up.
In example, let's take the sequence between 8:05 and 8:31. We see the girl in red nodding saddly and negatively to a protest march of fundamentalist march, saying "she hasn't seen anything from this scale" but by two times, we can already see two times the same frames. The camera shooting is close to the protestor, to create the illusion of a massive people. However, we see people on a bridge higher. Why didn't they take the shoot from there ? We could have seen how many they really were. Freeze it, and you will see the protestor are quite sparse in fact. But the statement of the woman and the speed of the sequence make any thinking and analysis difficult without rewinding and that's exaclty the purpose of that. I will also point the clumsy attempt to amalgam the refugee with some Pakistanese child rapist gang and other angry black man... and you began to see the credibility of this failing apart, and I could do the same with all the video.
Oh shout! Thank God we have someone with such trained eyes for deception and trickery! Only someone with super senses could detect the small footage edit mistakes by those Nazi scum! My untrained eyes couldn't see that! Oh wait, I actually watched that full video of that woman from 8:05. It turns out that it wasn't edited like your super trained eyes detected.
Hmm... I guess the amount of Muslims that participated in that brain-dead "protest" was kind of high... How embarrassing.
You try to put words in my mouths by saying I think the refugee are all angels while I never said that. What I say, is that they are human being, just like us, and there is bad people everywhere.
I'm not saying they are inherently bad, but the culture shock and huge culture difference is making them act out and the new environment is giving them freedom that they never had before. This is causing a lot of them to act like savages. Don't even try to deny the rates of refugee rapes that have skyrocketed since these stupid refugee procedures were enacted. Maybe those stats are biased too? The recorders of those must have been racist, right?
Aaand lastly... since you're obviously tend to read what you want to read... So, since you have trouble to understand or read correctly, I reiterate : I said you used a sociopathic character. But reassure you, aren't smart enough to be even a low functionning sociopath and the tough you enjoy being treated as such make it even funnier. :D Have a nice day ! ;)
Okay so you said "Asociopathic character" as opposed to "sociopathic character". Wow, you're right. I REALLY misread that one? I truly am an idiot for that! >.> The passive aggressiveness and condescension in your posts are hilarious. Right, I'm pretending to be a sociopath lmfao. I'm acting and playing a character right now? And I'm doing a bad job because I'm too stupid to pull it off? Christ, wtf have I gotten myself into here? The level of brain-dead here is ridiculous. But maybe I am just unconsciously doing what you are claiming? How am I to argue or dispute someone with such a high level of training in their eyes? Your detection skills are god tier level after all and just by reading my words and the way I type you must be on to something here...
Aaaaw ! Look who's back ! It's been awhile ! Merry christmas too !
Let's look what you bring us back...
A guilt trip isn't going to work on me. One or two as far as we know. If they caught the rest I'm sure you'd find they entered via that stupid refugee policy where we let in thousands of people without vetting them. And you call menaive. Lmao. It's not naive to refuse to do background checks on people from a foreign land before they enter? It's not naive to assume that they aren't threats b/c that might be racist? I think the word you are looking for isn't naive in that situation. It's ret@rded.
A confusion trip won't work on me either, because they caught the rest, or rather their remains, and like I said ealier in the thread, they were living in France since far before the war with daesh and ISIS. Those people were checked, but unfortunately, they bringed false papers.
And please, don't call you retarded, you're too harsh on yourself.
Next point is...
Bias doesn't mean sh!t. Also. you are trying to divert attention from my point by bringing up racial nonsense. Facts don't lie. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6527/migrants-rape-germany. What is your explanation for this? Another biased source? Maybe they fudged the numbers?
Oh no, they just screwed the perspective, my friend. I.E. In 2010, there was more than 7000 rapes recorded in Germany. I counted more or less twenty examples, plus some others who where allegated to the refugees but with no real proofs to support it. Less than thirty examples... over more than 7000... yeah, that's not totally fudging the number.
And have I to mention it didn't say whose politican is quoted ? Have I to mention the fact that gatesinstone is an organisation with strong anti-muslim policies which receive money from far rightist political movement ? Oh yeah, bias doesn't mean sh!t to you because you accept all things that prove you right without any reflexion. In a way I envy you, it must be so simple to be you... never thinking, never questionning any information...
How many times do I have to repeat the fact that footage doesn't lie?
As often I have to repeat that alll footage can be biased, I guess. I can take the footage of the ten last years american atrocity in Irak, of hooligans attacking people in stadium, photo and report of mass shooting in america, then saying "Oh look ! The white westerner people are bloody minded people whose culture is entirely based on violence and hate !" Then I'll show a nice graphic showing the dive of the birth in western country and conclude that western world culture contribute to the spreading of homosexuality and by spreading its values, it attempt to enforce an homosexual culture unto the rest of the world. Doesn't it sound silly to you ? If not, it's now time to question your sanity. If yes, then it's time to question your video because they do basically the same things. Taking many footages and making incorrect conclusion.
I'll skipped a good part of the two paragraph because, frankly, they don't make that much sense.
K, whatever you say. You're right. They just compiled footage of brown people from different countries causing havok and labeled it as refugees. All of those cases were simply Muslims from different nations protesting over different things from many years ago? If only there was proof to back that up.
XD
Are you... ? Because, they did just that.
Oh shout! Thank God we have someone with such trained eyes for deception and trickery! Only someone with super senses could detect the small footage edit mistakes by those Nazi scum! My untrained eyes couldn't see that! Oh wait, I actually watched that full video of that woman from 8:05. It turns out that it wasn't edited like your super trained eyes detected.
I will just point out that beyond the intended sarcasm, you failed to counter all the others arguments I made before that.
Hmm... I guess the amount of Muslims that participated in that brain-dead "protest" was kind of high... How embarrassing.
Embarassing for you, indeed...turn out they were... 80 ! That's clearly an invasion beyond all reckoning !
I'm not saying they are inherently bad, but the culture shock and huge culture difference is making them act out and the new environment is giving them freedom that they never had before. This is causing a lot of them to act like savages. Don't even try to deny the rates of refugee rapes that have skyrocketed since these stupid refugee procedures were enacted. Maybe those stats are biased too? The recorders of those must have been racist, right?
Ow, for a moment, I saw a spark of sense... and it faded it right as fast as it appeared. The problem is, there's no stats, and when the issue is adressed, it's always from a far rightist site or organisation. Those guys have decidly a thing about muslim rapers. Maybe it's a natsy fetish of some kind.
Aaaand finally the last attempt at witty insulting me was so boring I skipped it too.
Aaaaw ! Look who's back ! It's been awhile ! Merry christmas too !
Let's look what you bring us back...
I didn't know that far left wingers celebrated Christmas. I thought you guys were the type to say happy holidays as to not offend someone. Oh well, merry Christmas.
A confusion trip won't work on me either, because they caught the rest, or rather their remains, and like I said ealier in the thread, they were living in France since far before the war with daesh and ISIS. Those people were checked, but unfortunately, they bringed false papers.
I was unaware that they caught them. That's my mistake. But you have to admit that there is a risk that terrorists could come through via the refugee program, right? I mean for 2 of them it did happen so denying the risk is just dumb. The FBI in the United States has claimed that they have no way of effectively checking EVERY single refugee that comes through. But what do they know? Europeans are clearly better equipped at scanning hundreds of thousands of people in a short amount of time, right?
And please, don't call you retarded, you're too harsh on yourself.
I wasn't calling anyone retarded. I said that not effectively checking these refugees before they enter is retarded. The policy is what I was talking about. If the refugees weren't put on welfare immediately and they were actually checked properly before coming in I wouldn't mind taking them in.
Oh no, they just screwed the perspective, my friend. I.E. In 2010, there was more than 7000 rapes recorded in Germany. I counted more or less twenty examples, plus some others who where allegated to the refugees but with no real proofs to support it. Less than thirty examples... over more than 7000... yeah, that's not totally fudging the number.
Just keep believing what the mainstream media tells you.
Gallery
“This is an open letter from a few big organizations to the government of Hessen (one of the 16 regional parts of Germany),” wrote Benesch. “It is about an internment facility in Hessen where they initially put the refugees for further processing. It mentions a lack of security for women and children, leading to rape, molestation and (reportedly but not verified) forced prostitution.” Benesch added that the groups who released the document, “count among the biggest organizations of their kind,” and that Pro Familia Hessen is a “household name” in Germany. “Mainstream media coverage of this is scarce, because it embarrasses the government of Hessen and it embarrasses Berlin,” said Benesch. The story has been covered by Hessenschau.de and Deutschelandfunk.de. The document directly challenges the media narrative behind the refugee crisis, which has refused to acknowledge any of the negative aspects of allowing potentially millions of Muslim migrants to settle in Europe.
And have I to mention it didn't say whose politican is quoted ? Have I to mention the fact that gatesinstone is an organisation with strong anti-muslim policies which receive money from far rightist political movement ? Oh yeah, bias doesn't mean sh!t to you because you accept all things that prove you right without any reflexion. In a way I envy you, it must be so simple to be you... never thinking, never questionning any information...
The funny thing about bias is how it works both ways. You don't see me calling your socialist sources biased when I discover they are far left wing outlets. No, those aren't biased. Only the right can be biased and mess up their numbers I suppose. Again, ad hominem circumstantial. You can't dismantle the argument so you attack the source. That's okay. Also, I find it so hilariously ironic how you are accusing me of never questioning information when all you use is the mainstream media sources. Mainstream =/= correct.
As often I have to repeat that alll footage can be biased, I guess. I can take the footage of the ten last years american atrocity in Irak, of hooligans attacking people in stadium, photo and report of mass shooting in america, then saying "Oh look ! The white westerner people are bloody minded people whose culture is entirely based on violence and hate !" Then I'll show a nice graphic showing the dive of the birth in western country and conclude that western world culture contribute to the spreading of homosexuality and by spreading its values, it attempt to enforce an homosexual culture unto the rest of the world. Doesn't it sound silly to you ? If not, it's now time to question your sanity. If yes, then it's time to question your video because they do basically the same things. Taking many footages and making incorrect conclusion.
That's not what they did at all, but okay. Go ahead and post individual clips from the video that are truly out of context like you claim.
I'll skipped a good part of the two paragraph because, frankly, they don't make that much sense.
Cool.
XD
Are you... ? Because, they did just that.
Can you prove that? Or are you just going to use your super humanly trained eyes to prove your point again? Go ahead. I dare you to find a clip that they used and prove that it was some out of context protest from years ago or something. You won't do that though because that would require you to actually attack the video or the argument itself instead of the people who created it.
I will just point out that beyond the intended sarcasm, you failed to counter all the others arguments I made before that.
Don't know what you are talking about, but if I ignored some things that you "pointed out" in the video I'm sure it was because I didn't want to try and retort to your responses about how well your trained eyes are LOL. Again, pull up a clip. You act like I'm the delusional one who doesn't question things, but YOU are the one that refuses to open your mind to differing perspectives and that is causing you to jump to certain conclusions without proving your stance. "The footage is unreliable and compiled in a dishonest way because they are Neo-Nazis (even though I still haven't proven that). I don't need to back up my biases because I know in my heart that all refugees are innocent and helpless because that's what the mainstream and left wing media taught me. Therefore, that video can't possibly be correct. I'll use my confirmation bias when researching it further."
Embarassing for you, indeed...turn out they were... 80 ! That's clearly an invasion beyond all reckoning !
You are so desperate to be right it's hilarious. You claimed that she said, "I've never seen anything on this scale" or something like that. Where does she ever say that a protest 'on that scale' is more or less than the number 80? You made it seem like they edited the video where they showed millions of Muslims protesting and then cut back to her saying "I've never seen anything on this scale". They didn't do anything like that. The point isn't that there were only 80, the point is that you were wrong about them falsely editing the video to suit their needs.
Ow, for a moment, I saw a spark of sense... and it faded it right as fast as it appeared. The problem is, there's no stats, and when the issue is adressed, it's always from a far rightist site or organisation. Those guys have decidly a thing about muslim rapers. Maybe it's a natsy fetish of some kind. Aaaand finally the last attempt at witty insulting me was so boring I skipped it too.
Whatever you say, bud. You do realize that these governments are apprehensive to report about these mass assaults due to fear of being politically incorrect or racist? That's what kind of retardation your left wing ideology is bringing to the West. A lot of them are getting off with a slap on the wrist or community service because God forbid if we actually enforce the laws on a Muslim! Holy crap, all hell would break loose. I'd like to get your opinion on this video of moderate Muslims.
Loading Video...
I'm curious to see what a desperate left wing apologist has to say about something like this. Are you going to attack the source? Are you going to claim that it was staged? I'm genuinely interested to see what someone like you can say about this to try and reassure yourself that you are correct about your misplaced ideals.
If you think that the US should accept refugees.....please tell me, what room in your house do you plan to put them in?? How much money are you planning to give them personally?? What part of the neighborhood that you plan to port them to are you going to live near them in?? Oh....you're probably not going to have anything to do with them right?? Because the feeling that we should be humane and take them in is an abstract feeling to make yourself feel better and seem the most caring in liberal social circles. This is why liberalism has a history of weakening countries to the point where they fall.
Log in to comment