As in they think "UK should let more in?"
Or "country's like Sweden, Denmark, Norway should take more in"?
(Not making a statement, just confused about what context you're talking about)
both, I've had to listen to people use fucking M and M analogy on me because they think UK have stopped taking in refugees because they are to violent when its because its way more complicated a process to let in refuges here in the first place.
.
however i am unsure of how many refugees, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have taken in so i cant boldly say these country's have done enough but if they want to stop taking in refugees it's up to them
Denmark and Sweden (I am a Dane). We have taken in more then what we can even handle.. Sweden got it worse at one point then Denmark... So yaa think we took in what would equal to US taking in 10mil compared to size and population or something like that. So i think we as smaller countries did our part so far. Aswell as sending troops to fight.
Yes this is all good and stuff but when you take in people who have been in a war, and don't know how to act in the 1st world, they bring that war with them.
I believe the war point is right. Their religion dictates that they should strike down any and all "enemies" of Islam. That's how you get the statistic that 97% of Muslims commit suicide bombing attacks. They do that on the battlefield too. Metroplitan areas are no different to them.
I think you worded that very wrong there my friend.
"Out of 450 suicide bombings, 97% of the bombers were Muslim"
Not
"97% of Muslims are suicide bombers"
!
Yeah, assault as total bull crap, aha, but you can get Infinity on PS3, if you still want the original ace combat feel!
Reply
deleted
· 7 years ago
Globalists are flooding the first world with cheap labour; they do not compute the cost of human suffering.
The pushback from the countries being invaded is due to a lack of cultural assimilation, in the past when people moved into a successful country model, the host country would allow people in an ebb and flow. In periods where less migrants moved in, the existing migrants and their children would adapt the cultural values that made their new home so desirable in the first place.
In the recent flooding of civilized countries there has been too many people coming too often without reprieve. This has caused pockets of the original culture flourishing and led to a degradation of the host countries quality of life and the strength of its citizenry to defend themselves has been undermined by apologist policy makers.
There's a difference between 'refugee' and 'migrant' all of the Muslims flooding the civilized world already reached safe country's and lost 'refugee' status.
I really don't see what's the problem? You think Sarajevo or Kosovo was any better. One week after the war they started rebuilding. With what? Who knows. Nobody helped.
That's not the problem.
You just said "one week after the war-"
They're still at war. If they had began rebuilding amongst air strikes and bombings, I'll admit, I'd have been hella impressed.
There are always those who can't run away. Serbs (Bosnians) ran to Serbia, Croats (Bosnians)to Croatia, but what about those Bosniaks (Muslims)? If they left for Europe or New Zealand like my Croat cousins they would be never again able to get back. Bosnia would be existent no more. I'm more sorry for those guys left there defending their ground. My cousins got back, if Bosniaks left they would not have anything to get back to. The whole nation of wonderers, like Jews or Gypsies.
Friends from pristine Prishtina (Kosovo) who had 3 three room apartments had enough money to buy 1 in Belgrade (they lost 3 though) but someone who shared his 2 room with 9 family members never bought anything . And they lived on the land and of the sheep. They couldn't bring that with them. But that's another story. Serbs are jerks, and they occupied that land. If Syrians were like Bosniaks, they could never leave. There are millions there now ...fighting, for survival.
I think the issue with comparing these is the Bosnian War lasted 3 years , 8 months with around 40,000 civilians dead and around 56,000 soldiers dead
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War)
But the Syrian conflict on the other hand has lasted 5 years 9 months with around 470,000 dead, soldier/civilian or otherwise.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War)
The massacre in Syria is not something that can be fought against, with so many factions, trained fighters and brutal killing.
It's 'like' the pub analogy, except, they have 20 seconds leave, if they don't the father gets to watch his family and the family next to him die...
So many factions, much terror, wow violence. What a hell do you think happened in Yugoslavia. You really don't know nothing. Chopping heads off was a daily routine, burning whole cities, gorging eyes and drinking it! Godfathers slit throats of godchildren, making mothers eat their children, chopping off titties and frying them on stove. I'm not imagining this, you had people who bragged about it. People from my family. In an intimate confessions.
Lunatic asylums patients were immediately set free into the war. What a hell do you think they did, cuddle kittens? Anyone with enough power could have a faction. We had 70 factions. And mujahadeens too. And we were all trained. We all went to obligatory army here. And who told you it lasted for 3y? Bosnia is just one part that declared independence. It's like saying war in Allepo lasted for 2y. War in Yugoslavia lasted almost a decade. Same people fought in all the wars. There weren't 470,000 casualties cause Bosnia has 1 million citizens, on all three sides. Ten times less people ten times less victims. But they stayed cause they would find no Bosnia when they come back. I'm sorry for the refugees, but I'm more sorry for "caged" defence forces that stayed there. Hats down for those people.
No,@Iblazel, our religion does not fucking say that. YOU ARENT EVEN ALLOWED TO KILL ANYONE IN OUR RELIGION, EVEN IF THEYRE NOT MUSLIM. YOU GO TO HELL IMMEDIATELY IF U KILL ANYONE MUSLIM OR NOT. THR ONLY WAY IT IS ALLOWED TO KILL IS WHEN U NEED TO PROTECT URSELF, OR LIKE IN A FUCKING MAJOR WAR YU STUPID SHIT. I am so tired f people thinking that's Muslims think its fucking okay to kill anyone who isn't Muslim LIKE CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK UR FACTS.
I don't think any mainstream religion allows killing of other humans, at all, that much is true, but SAYING IT LIKE THIS, won't make it anymore true or false...
@Themuffinmanishigh yes it actually does "fucking say that." It says that killing is wrong UNLESS you die in doing so. Martyrdom. When you die in killing "the enemies of Islam", all sin is stripped away. That's why ISIS rape and kill people. Because when they die, all sin is stripped away. They are promised 72 virgin's and a garden in paradise or some shit. Very simple yet horrible concept. And also the majority of Muslims in Palestine and other places think its ok to kill someone by suicide bombing because of the "reward" they get.
Better question: Why do so many "refugees" insist on trying to make their new home like the craphole they fled, and why are so damn many refugees males between the ages of 15 and 25?
except it didn't - there's loads of before/after pics - it what makes it far more of a tragedy to me, normal streets, normal lives, people doing normal things - now this. It's the great lottery of life, the place you're born
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-the-refugees-stay-to-fight-for-their-country
Or "country's like Sweden, Denmark, Norway should take more in"?
(Not making a statement, just confused about what context you're talking about)
.
however i am unsure of how many refugees, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have taken in so i cant boldly say these country's have done enough but if they want to stop taking in refugees it's up to them
"Out of 450 suicide bombings, 97% of the bombers were Muslim"
Not
"97% of Muslims are suicide bombers"
!
Squadron Leader on the PS2 was my favourite, aha!
That mission were chopper goes down DX
The pushback from the countries being invaded is due to a lack of cultural assimilation, in the past when people moved into a successful country model, the host country would allow people in an ebb and flow. In periods where less migrants moved in, the existing migrants and their children would adapt the cultural values that made their new home so desirable in the first place.
In the recent flooding of civilized countries there has been too many people coming too often without reprieve. This has caused pockets of the original culture flourishing and led to a degradation of the host countries quality of life and the strength of its citizenry to defend themselves has been undermined by apologist policy makers.
There's a difference between 'refugee' and 'migrant' all of the Muslims flooding the civilized world already reached safe country's and lost 'refugee' status.
You just said "one week after the war-"
They're still at war. If they had began rebuilding amongst air strikes and bombings, I'll admit, I'd have been hella impressed.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War)
But the Syrian conflict on the other hand has lasted 5 years 9 months with around 470,000 dead, soldier/civilian or otherwise.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War)
The massacre in Syria is not something that can be fought against, with so many factions, trained fighters and brutal killing.
It's 'like' the pub analogy, except, they have 20 seconds leave, if they don't the father gets to watch his family and the family next to him die...