A New Migration Period

[brmstn69]

I've kept quite here for some time now, mostly because I know my opinion will piss a lot of people here off, but here it goes any way...

First we must examine the difference between a "migrant" and a "refugee". A migrant moves to another country for the social or economic benefits it offers them. They want the lifestyle their host country affords them . A refugee isn't looking for a new life, they just want a safe place to continue living as they have been. They want to retain their customs and traditions. They don't want ISIS' brand of Islam, but they still want Islam. For many that means polygamy, child brides, arranged weddings, spousal abuse, honor killings, and abiding by Sharia law Which is in direct conflict with the laws and customs of their host countries.

Then there is the very real possibility of ISIS operatives posing as refugees to gain entrance to other countries. Not only is there the risk of terrorist acts, but also direct recruitment of more soldiers already in Europe.

If history has taught us anything it's that Islam is a patient beast. I see all this as a long con, and the rest of the world is playing right into ISIS hands. ISIS has two main objectives, the short term and the long term. In the short term, they are trying to gain control of the Muslim world, the long term, to spread Islam throughout the rest of the world. And right now their succeeding at both.
Islam doesn't believe in democracy, but will use it to it;s advantage. If all these so called refugees are allowed to stay in the western world, within two generations their populations will have grown enough to gain seats in parliament and within 4 or 5 enough to be the majority.

I've heard it said that the western world should bear the burden of these refugees because they were directly responsible for destabilizing the Middle East. I say bullshit, why should the rest of us suffer for the actions of the powerful, wealthy, elite committed decades ago?

And as a final thought, Why aren't other Muslim nations stepping up to take them in? Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Jordan, Indonesia, where are you?

 

[Stonecold]

brmstn69 I agree with you 100%

 

[js324]

If you don't want the refugees to stay, than ISIS as well as the Syrian civil war, must be stopped. Since the people in the region can't seem to do that, European nations just need to band together and do what they can to help remedy the situation, even if that means war.

If the threat of ISIS persists more people will migrate to Europe and then those areas will become so depopulated that ISIS could obtain total control and set up their super Islamic caliphate that they want, which will only create more issues in the future.

The nations of Europe must step up and fight, to give ordinary people in Iraq and Syria a reason to stay, and to give the migrants hope that things will improve enough in the near future for them to return.

As for some of the earlier posts stating that rich nations such as Germany and the UK should bear the front of the waves b/c the smaller European countries don't have the money, Lebanon has less money and is smaller than most of those nations, yet they've taken on about 2 million refugees, making 1 out of every 5 people in Lebanon a Syrian refugee. I'm not saying that any one European nation should go that far, but if Lebanon, a country that hasn't always had the best relationship with Syria can do that, why can't Europe split up the refugees equally for now?

 

[Stonecold]

ISIS will have an all out war when they go to far and Europe has had enough of this problem. 62 percent of Americans support ground troops against ISIS.
A breakdown of the poll shows men back the deployment of U.S. troops in that region by 68 percent to 28 percent, while women favor it 57 percent to 33 percent. 53 percent are more concerned that the U.S. military will not go far enough in stopping ISIS.
ISIS threatened Vladimir Putin himself the other day so all America needs now is for Europe to not scream bloody murder for taking out ISIS.
And voters say 72 - 19 percent that the U.S. should never pay ransom to terrorists who are holding American hostages. This opinion is shared by every listed group.

"Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: The resounding hardline message from Americans who say, 'Don't negotiate with terrorists; destroy them,'" said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Source

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2171

 

[Shelter]

brmstn69 I agree with you 100%

:agree::agree::agree::agree: Me too - and may I top it with 200%?!

 

[skyward]

"Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: The resounding hardline message from Americans who say, 'Don't negotiate with terrorists; destroy them,'" said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll

Polling US citizens is all well and good, but what do the Syrian people think is the best strategy? That's a more primary question. If Assad has their backing & Russian & Iranian Support, he is central to any workable solutions.

If world powers could sit down with Iran, and make very substantial progress, why can they not do the same with Assad? The US will of course have a seat at the table, and can pursue its own interests, in concert with other powers.

'Send in the troops' would take months of organisation. Assad's troops are already there. They know the terrain and the people.

Russia & Iran have influence over Assad. It's their task to keep him in line. Similarly, the US has influence over Saudi Arabia. It's their task to keep the Saudi's in line and force them to stop funding ISIS -if they don't then it raises serious questions about covert US intentions.

One thing is for sure, the way things stand the migrant situation is set to get A LOT worse.

 

[jazzeven]

"Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: The resounding hardline message from Americans who say, 'Don't negotiate with terrorists; destroy them,'" said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Oh, yes, let's copy the success story of the attack on Iraq which brought us ISIS.
Everybody knows that the USA love making war. That is not really news. A much more interesting question would be, whether war will solve the problem. And western ground troups, even from nations with a less obvious agenda when it comes to controlling the world, are not looked upon positively. In the end the situation will be the same endless drone war which allows the USA to control the surface, while under it the sympathizers are boiling and sooner or later the situation will escalate again. Like we have seen it in Afganistan, like we have seen it in Iraq.
The idea to simply erradicate the problem by using force is the old teabaggers' illusion of a world as simple as the middle of last century. But that time is over. The USA can try to fight a symmetrical war, but they are not in the position to decide. If ISIS says: asymmetrical, the USA will bend and have to follow. So in the end that will just lead to the USA being pulled through the arena on a leash, once more...

And when it comes to soldiers among the refugees, the question is: why? why shouldn't the soldiers cross the borders in small groups like... well... soldiers? They could bring their guns and equipment, they would not get registered, they would not have to live in a camp among people who most likely hate them more than anything.

 

[gb2000ie]

I don't understand why they are fleeing with the expectation for another country to take them in instead of fighting for their country and lives. They are young and strong. Yet won't stay and fight for their own children's lives and homes. They want to be in stable free countries but not willing to make the sacrifice that the courageous young men in those countries made to gain that freedom and stability.

That is so easy to say form our comfortable lives. Pathetically easy.

Who, exactly would a good Syrian fight for, and who against? It seems like every option of government in Syria is a shitty one - would you like an ordinary despot, or a religious fundamentalist despot?

It's one thing to say people should stay and fight if there is an army fighting the good fight they could join, but there just isn't in Syria.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

I've heard it said that the western world should bear the burden of these refugees because they were directly responsible for destabilizing the Middle East. I say bullshit, why should the rest of us suffer for the actions of the powerful, wealthy, elite committed decades ago?

Decades ago?

What rock have you spent the last few decades under?

And as a final thought, Why aren't other Muslim nations stepping up to take them in? Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Jordan, Indonesia, where are you?

THEY ARE!!!!!

Where are the biggest refugee camps - JORDAN!

Just because western media focuses on western countries and doesn't bother telling you what is going on elsewhere doesn't mean nothing is going on elsewhere!

I detest this ill-informed parochial hogwash so much!

As for your islamophobia - I don't hold with that kind of dangerous 'othering' and tarring of a few billion people with the same brush. When you generalise a few billion people like that, as if they are all the same, you are literally being racist:

racism - noun:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

B.

 

[Stonecold]

Oh, yes, let's copy the success story of the attack on Iraq which brought us ISIS.

The American people do not want a war like Iraq, they are against that type of war. Americans when they go after ISIL will declare war and go in and finish the job. America has not had a declared war since 1942. I agree with you that a Iraq type war would be bad, the only thing that will stop ISIS is all out war with out tying the military hands.

 

[skyward]

Who, exactly would a good Syrian fight for, and who against?

I feel that most wars and major conflicts are complex and involve a high degree of manipulation coming from all sides. But people can fight to protect their people, their communities, or simply to protect their families. One way of protecting your family is to remove them from the conflict, and to relocate to a safe zone or country. I am sure there are many such unfortunate and desperate families fleeing to Europe as we speak.

Anon URL

Note the breakdown:

Children: 15%
Women: 13%
Men: 72%

Why so many men? From the various videos I have seen there seem to be a disproportionately high number of quite young men. Why?

I am completely on the side of legitimate refugees. But we do need to ask questions and assess. Not just Hungary, but now also Austria & Germany are at least temporarily rethinking their border controls.

 

[Stonecold]

Trump: I Will Absolutely Use A Nuclear Weapon Against ISIS


NEW YORK, Ny. – In response to a question regarding his policy on ISIS, Republican presidential candidate and billionaire Donald Trump told Meet the Press on Sunday that as Commander-in-Chief, he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons to combat Islamic extremism. “Let’s face it, these people are barbarians,” Trump said. “And thanks to Obama’s failed policy in Iraq and Syria, they’re beheading Christians all over the world.”

Mr. Trump said he’s already conferred with a number of high-level active military officials and has put together a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Islamic State within his first one hundred days in office. “It starts with the deployment of four or five of our Ohio-class nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them and we’re going to hit them hard. I’m talking about a surgical strike on these ISIS stronghold cities using Trident missiles.”

The Trident is a submarine-launched ballistic missile equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. With a payload of up to fourteen reentry vehicles, each carrying a 362-pound thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 100 kilotons, a single Trident has roughly seventy times the destructive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Trump’s plan to use thermonuclear weapons against ISIS-held areas such as the Syrian city of Al-Raqqah would result in an astronomically high number of civilian casualties, according to CNN military analyst Peter Mansoor. “Al-Raqqah alone has a population of over two hundred-thousand people, the vast majority of whom are not affiliated in any way with the Islamic State,” Mansoor said. “A strike of this magnitude would not only result in the loss of millions of innocent lives and infrastructure, but it would set diplomacy and stability in the region back at least a hundred years.”

Civilian casualties are an unfortunate “reality of war” according to Trump, who justified the use of nuclear weapons saying they “send a clear message to those who conspire against America and her allies.” Mr. Trump said that unlike past and present administrations, he possesses the “moral fortitude to do what must be done” to protect America. “We’re losing to China. We’re losing to Mexico. We will not lose to ISIS,” Trump said.

I personally do not support Trump but the above reason is one of the reasons Trump is doing so well now.

 

[skyward]

all out war with out tying the military hands

Do you feel, in such a scenario, that your foreign-policy elites will solely target ISIS, or will they also target the government forces? What if they have extremely sophisticated defense systems? If Russian advisers etc are in the area can you trust your foreign-policy elites not to target them, or the Russian naval facility in Syria. If the wrong missile hits the wrong target, we could be staring down the jaws of utter catastrophe.

If you agree and feel that only ISIS should be targeted, at the very least should you not make it clear to those in power that a condition for additional military actions is that activity has to be coordinated with the Syrian government and it's supporters. But can you trust US elites? I know I don't. Not for a second.

 

[skyward]

Mr. Trump said he’s already conferred with a number of high-level active military officials and has put together a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Islamic State within his first one hundred days in office. “It starts with the deployment of four or five of our Ohio-class nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them and we’re going to hit them hard. I’m talking about a surgical strike on these ISIS stronghold cities using Trident missiles.”

How can carrying out nuclear strikes be considered 'surgical'.:?

He is basically saying 'elect me and I will promise to start WWIII and see the end all life on earth'.

And this makes him popular? *Gulp*

 

[Shelter]

But can you trust US elites? I know I don't. Not for a second.

Which "elites" you can trust??? Perhaps the Russian? We have had a Chancellor which has said a very famous word about the "peace-loving" Putin: "Mr. Putin is a flawless democrat" - Wow, now you can laugh or cry! Gives it so much satisfaction always bashing on the USA? And gives it so much satisfaction to fawn upon the damned Russians?

 

[gb2000ie]

One way of protecting your family is to remove them from the conflict, and to relocate to a safe zone or country. I am sure there are many such unfortunate and desperate families fleeing to Europe as we speak.

Right - that was exactly my point - I was countering the argument that these refugees should have stayed home and fought.

B.

 

[W!nston]

So people who follow Islam are considered a separate race now? Is that why the race card was played this time?

It's the fall-back argument of choice I suppose.

It is sad

ps - I think it's time to surrender the Middle East to ISIS completely. Let Israel defend itself against the enemies around them. If Russia wants to buddy-up with Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and the Palestinians let him have his way.

The West has had a good run and now it's over.

 

[skyward]

Which "elites" you can trust??? Perhaps the Russian? We have had a Chancellor which has said a very famous word about the "peace-loving" Putin: "Mr. Putin is a flawless democrat" - Wow, now you can laugh or cry! Gives it so much satisfaction always bashing on the USA? And gives it so much satisfaction to fawn upon the damned Russians?

Saudi Arabia carry out so many be-headings its hard to keep count. And yet we rarely hear a bad word about them. When the Saudi King visited the White House recently, Obama actually came out the side door to greet and personally escort him inside. Despite all their be-headings, we rarely hear a bad word about them in the media. When we do, it's usually kept as low-key as possible.

Now that's a good example of fawning! Hard to beat that one.

And to answer your question, I don't trust any of these elites. Just look around at the world we live in!

 

[gb2000ie]

So people who follow Islam are considered a separate race now? Is that why the race card was played this time?

It's the fall-back argument of choice I suppose.

It is sad

ps - I think it's time to surrender the Middle East to ISIS completely. Let Israel defend itself against the enemies around them. If Russia wants to buddy-up with Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and the Palestinians let him have his way.

The West has had a good run and now it's over.

What is sad is people who think it's OK to tar a few billion people with one brush.

You call standing up against that kind of dangerous generalisation "playing the race card", I call it "calling a spade a spade".

People who generalise about all gays are condemned here, and right so, so why is it OK to generalise about other large groups?

Consistency people, consistency! Let's not 'other' people with gay abandon, we should bloody well know better, having been the victims of that kind of BS for so long!

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

So people who follow Islam are considered a separate race now?

According to the dictionary definition of the word, yes!

race - noun

...

a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.

...

B.