refugees welcome?

[SasukeTheEmo]

Most of Syria is in favour of Assad.

 

[Aim64C]

Dunno when this guy will overthrow his goverment :lol ^^^^

The government will overthrow itself.

Regardless of what I do, the U.S. will trend toward a communist dictatorship with a violent cultural revolution.

I will build a separate nation that lays claim to regions around where I currently consider home and that will incorporate those who opt to join this nation. If the territorial claim conflicts - the sovereignty of 'my' nation will be enforced.

It's as simple as that. Attempting to stage my own revolution to lay claim to an entire nation would require that I essentially become a dictator. A peaceful revolution in America is not possible. Tens of millions will be killed in the fighting that occurs over who gets to claim to be a "True American."

The only alternative I can arrive at is simply offering up a separate nation that embodies the opposite trend that our current nation is expressing. A nation of laws under a free market with minimalist government. Let those who wish to be communists be communists - and let those who wish to embrace sanity embrace sanity.

When the communists get pissy and try to blame us for their failures while sending armed people to enforce some degree of taxation - they will be met with armed resistance and repelled.

It is unfortunate that this is the way things must be - but the only other alternative in which I and those of my ideology are not thrown into concentration camps is one where we exterminate people of different ideologies while claiming the moral high ground.

 

[iBrezeeh]

bla bla bla i only talk shit bla

you dont even get what im talking about im talking about current lampedusa and syrian refugees which leave their countrees and step in italy, greece etc and then advance further into Europe. you dont even know it man i can even see by your avatar your just patriotic prick nothing more patriotic and ignorant

 

[BLAZE]

you dont even get what im talking about im talking about current lampedusa and syrian refugees which leave their countrees and step in italy, greece etc and then advance further into Europe. you dont even know it man i can even see by your avatar your just patriotic prick nothing more patriotic and ignorant

Read his reply to me :|

guy wants create his Supremacist colony

 

[iBrezeeh]

Read his reply to me :|

guy wants create his Supremacist colony

here:

You must be registered for see links

" Leaving their homeland had never been part of the picture. Al Roustom had a supermarket and owned their home in the western Syria city of Homs. But a civil war that started with unrest in 2011 had taken its toll, especially on his son Wesam, already dealing with autism and so traumatized by the barrage of violence that he stopped speaking entirely.

"When they would exit the house, it was only to the sounds of war," Al Roustom said through a translator. "When they would sleep, they would hear the sound of bullets."

These days, it's the sounds of passing cars and conversations between people on the street for Al Roustom and his wife, Suha, as they and their children settle into their small apartment in Jersey City, New Jersey. They've been here about three months, among the 1,500 or so Syrian refugees who have been resettled in the U.S. out of an estimated 4 million who fled the country in recent years. "

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

Roughly 70,000 refugees enter the United States annually via legal channels. 70,000 every year since 2006.

By all means, come up with another excuse to exclude us Americans from the conversation about "Global Citizens."

Pretentious prick.

 

[Angelic.]

Read his reply to me :|

guy wants create his Supremacist colony

its just gonna be his house with barbed wire fence around it lol

 

[bajram]

I think they should not be coming to our contrees because they should try to solve problem in they contree first.
im not against them i even have a refugee friend but most of them just ungrateful like me and my class had to go to a refugee camp and help out for 1 day i gave them some jackets and one told me he dont like my jacket because its adidas i was like what? jacket is jacket!!! it really upset me

what you think??

How old are u, really?

 

[Aim64C]

Read his reply to me :|

guy wants create his Supremacist colony

You've not been paying attention.

There is a difference between a Nation of Men and a Nation of Laws. Since there is no longer a Nation of Laws upon the surface of this planet, I will create one that is a Nation of Laws.

Law is designed to constrain the nature of human beings, and none of those natures are more important to constrain than the nature to dominate. You, filled with self-ignorance, do not realize the tyrant you are at heart. We're a world full of tyranny that has deceived itself into believing it is noble.

All people are welcomed into a Nation of Law, so long as they are willing to abide by that law. Nations that are effective at enforcing their laws, and who have laws seen as reasonable by society, are those nations that will grow in terms of migrant populations, economy, and influence.

Hence, the goal is the minimum necessary government that enforces its laws swiftly and efficiently while providing as few opportunities for people to expand those laws as possible.

So, in a sense of "I want to build an elite society" - yes, I do.

However, those who know the most about me know that I see people for who they will become - not for who they are. The ***** who will become a noble queen, the dropout who will make an engineering breakthrough that defines the next century of industrial capability.

I believe in building people:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

But there is a difference between those who are 'yearning to breathe free' - and those who are simply looking to escape responsibility. There are those who have fire in their eyes, and those who do not.

Your eyes are glazed, still dazed by the splendor of Babylon. We'll have to see how that changes after Babylon falls.

 

[NarutoKage2]

They for the most part were tricked. It's also a different situation. The jews were against a government and nation where they had no real allies. In syria there is a civil war (ie sides to chooses and people to arm you). Choose a side and fight. If you choose neither then start your own shit

This is false. Most poorer nations of the world(esp Arab, near east and south Asian) simply don't have the resources to arm or equip the vast majority of their populations. Total war is a material impossibility. The Pakistani armed forces, for example accept only 5 of every 50 applicants on average, one of the highest rejection rates in the world for a military. So even though I'm against Europe being forced to take so many refugees, don't be ignorant by stating they should stay and fight. The majority can only stay and die.

 

[Aim64C]

This is false. Most poorer nations of the world(esp Arab, near east and south Asian) simply don't have the resources to arm or equip the vast majority of their populations. Total war is a material impossibility. The Pakistani armed forces, for example accept only 5 of every 50 applicants on average, one of the highest rejection rates in the world for a military. So even though I'm against Europe being forced to take so many refugees, don't be ignorant by stating they should stay and fight. The majority can only stay and die.

Which begs the question:

Where do all of these militant factions keep getting their munitions?

 

[NarutoKage2]

Which begs the question:

Where do all of these militant factions keep getting their munitions?

Well with a global population of more than a billion(muslims), even if .1 percent had access to weapons and get picked up by jihadis, thats still one million people. That's scattered about in 50 or so nations, so it still seems like a massive, never ending lot.

Places like Afghanistan are an exception, where the historic underground smuggling trade means most of that country has weapons.

 

[Aim64C]

Well with a global population of more than a billion(muslims), even if .1 percent had access to weapons and get picked up by jihadis, thats still one million people. That's scattered about in 50 or so nations, so it still seems like a massive, never ending lot.

Places like Afghanistan are an exception, where the historic underground smuggling trade means most of that country has weapons.

The statistics for Islamic "Radicalism" don't break down so 'friendly.' Support and membership in groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS are about 5-7%. Each. Of course, the problem is that Islam does not function the same way other religions work. Polls of Islamic populations show that the more concentrated muslim populations become, the more they tend to agree with sentiments such as killing apostates (those who turn from Islam - IE - if a Muslim wanted to become a Christian, Buddhist, or what-have-they). For example, populations in Saudi Arabia poll as high as 90% in support of the killing of Apostates, while some 80% are concerned about "radicalization."

Obviously, the concept of "radical" in Islam and the concept of "radical" in western values systems is different. The differences between ISIS and mainstream Islam are far less than the annotation of ISIS being "radical" would imply within a western context.

Also, I've seen the kind of logistics that go into fighting even small skirmishes from a military standpoint. Ammunition is not cheap, and the average person does not have enough ammunition to fuel much of a civil war. Five hundred rounds can be stretched across perhaps ten minor skirmishes or three larger conflicts constituting a battle. For one irregular infantry.

It's not so much who has the guns - it's who is supplying the ammo. Who is supplying the grenades? These guys are consuming huge amounts of resources to fight this war. In terms of pure logistics, they shouldn't have the capability to control territory - certainly not against a State. Not without continual support from those who can afford to pump ammunition and consumable war-fighting items their way.

Or, rather, how big is the list and whose names are upon it?

My point was that there are those who believe they stand to gain, economically, if they partner with these militant muslims to collapse nations - just as NATO thought it did back when they used Al Qaeda to break up Yugoslavia.

It's the same tactic taken out of the same book and the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Many of the individual States within the EU decided to close off their borders and EU leadership voted to mandate settlement districts in all of the member states of the EU (which, again, I and others like me have warned you all about the dangers inherent in the EU's governing structure - the day would come when every EU nation would regret becoming part of the accursed thing).

This issue will take point when it comes to the disagreements that lead to the shattering of the EU.

Which - I agree, I am glad to see the EU, as the institution it is, go... but a return to classic European Tribalism with embittered and embattled nations is not a good thing, either.

Anyway - the point of my statement was that, basically, if you follow the money, I suspect you will find plenty of economic support coming from groups that like to fund radical militants - such as Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and a few other activist groups that like wearing blood.

 

[NarutoKage2]

The statistics for Islamic "Radicalism" don't break down so 'friendly.' Support and membership in groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS are about 5-7%. Each. Of course, the problem is that Islam does not function the same way other religions work. Polls of Islamic populations show that the more concentrated muslim populations become, the more they tend to agree with sentiments such as killing apostates (those who turn from Islam - IE - if a Muslim wanted to become a Christian, Buddhist, or what-have-they). For example, populations in Saudi Arabia poll as high as 90% in support of the killing of Apostates, while some 80% are concerned about "radicalization."

Obviously, the concept of "radical" in Islam and the concept of "radical" in western values systems is different. The differences between ISIS and mainstream Islam are far less than the annotation of ISIS being "radical" would imply within a western context.

Also, I've seen the kind of logistics that go into fighting even small skirmishes from a military standpoint. Ammunition is not cheap, and the average person does not have enough ammunition to fuel much of a civil war. Five hundred rounds can be stretched across perhaps ten minor skirmishes or three larger conflicts constituting a battle. For one irregular infantry.

It's not so much who has the guns - it's who is supplying the ammo. Who is supplying the grenades? These guys are consuming huge amounts of resources to fight this war. In terms of pure logistics, they shouldn't have the capability to control territory - certainly not against a State. Not without continual support from those who can afford to pump ammunition and consumable war-fighting items their way.

Or, rather, how big is the list and whose names are upon it?

My point was that there are those who believe they stand to gain, economically, if they partner with these militant muslims to collapse nations - just as NATO thought it did back when they used Al Qaeda to break up Yugoslavia.

It's the same tactic taken out of the same book and the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Many of the individual States within the EU decided to close off their borders and EU leadership voted to mandate settlement districts in all of the member states of the EU (which, again, I and others like me have warned you all about the dangers inherent in the EU's governing structure - the day would come when every EU nation would regret becoming part of the accursed thing).

This issue will take point when it comes to the disagreements that lead to the shattering of the EU.

Which - I agree, I am glad to see the EU, as the institution it is, go... but a return to classic European Tribalism with embittered and embattled nations is not a good thing, either.

Anyway - the point of my statement was that, basically, if you follow the money, I suspect you will find plenty of economic support coming from groups that like to fund radical militants - such as Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and a few other activist groups that like wearing blood.

5-7 % each??? As a percentage of what? The global Muslim population or the native populace in conflict zones such as Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? What is your source for that figure?

And even if it was a regional phenomenon, you assign too much blame to 'Islam', and 'Islamic causes', which apart from demonstrating your bias, is also a factually naive position to assume. If being 'Islamic' all by itself was capable of generating such unity of purpose and cohesion, care to explain why not a single 'Islamic' gulf state(Saudi Arabia, uae, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar) was willing to accept even a single Muslim Syrian refugee? Basically you are trying to correlate perceived Muslim attitudes with actual militia mobilization and action, a pretty useless effort.
If you imply that the terrorists are non state actors, there are still too many internal splits such as the shia sunni divide for them to unite on one giant front as you state.
And no, being from a Muslim country myself I can guarantee that the annotation of Isis being radical is as pronounced here as in the west.

It is possible that in conflict zones themselves, large percentages of the population rally against the 'foreign' invader due to ethnic nationalistic sentiments(exactly what happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan) using a religious banner. A widespread will to be hostile to the invader is not to be confused with purely religious extremism.
As for Isis support networks and logistics, you have Kurdish ethnic unity in Syria, Iraq and turkey to make the flow of weapons across borders easier, but as to who is doing the actual financing you have to ask who has the most to gain by installing Islamic state in that region? Certain US agencies as you rightly pointed out, and very possibly the gulf states(Saudis in particular) to counter a rising , post nuclear deal Iran in the region.

I think the EU has itself to blame, with Germany going above and beyond what those nations own governments would have done for there own people even in peacetime. I dont believe the Germans are stupid, however and the fact that their country has had a negative population growth rate may well mean that Merkel is using the refugees to plug in a labor shortfall. Can't really expect the rest of Europe to dance to that tune, though.

 

[Lytes]

You should work on your English