#refugeeswelcome

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

We did support Al Nusra and IS (yes genius yet again IS are in Syria) and Islamic Jihad in Syria and Libya. We openly funded extremist groups who were involved in the civil wars. We then stopped funding them after we had rescued them from the brink of being crushed to being the main rebel groups in the region controlling massive amounts of territory.

Then they predictably started beheading westerners and doing what anyone with half a brain knew they would do. The U.S then started bombing IS and Al Nusra, after funding and arming them.

Yet again a masterstroke of blowback from the U.S and GB. Now people like Petraeus and other people are calling for a reliance with Al Qaeda in a fucking tom and jerry plan to get Al Nusra fighters to defect to a less extreme (but still extreme) Islamist group who Al Nusra recently smashed.

[/quote]

Wow, so we backed the Mujahideen, who became the Taliban, who backed Al-Qaeda, fought a war against AQI for 10 years, then backed them, then stopped backing them and are now trying to back them again because of the advise from a disgraced former General?

Insanity.

We never backed ISIS. Assad backed ISIS. ISIS originally was AQI. AQI was almost crushed. Because of the influence of the Iranians in Iraq, the Sunnis became marginalized. When the civilian uprising occurred in Syria, ISIS hijacked it. When we pulled out of Iraq, ISIS moved into the Sunni controlled areas, conquering a large territory and seizing American arms. Both Al-Nursa & ISIS were originally AQI. When were they our allies? Never.

If they were allies with the West, why on earth did they behead Westerners?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

No I claimed we did not fund Al Qaeda, the popular conspiracy is that the U.S funded Al Qaeda and they were basically a US creation. We did not fund or train Al Qaeda, they arose from within the Mujahideen we funded in Afghanistan, with most of the top members being Afghan vets.
[/quote]

So, if we did not fund Al-Qaeda, how are we at fault for what the Mujahideen movement evolved into?

Because the Mujahideen became the Taliban not Al Qaeda for the millionth time. Also we funded and trained the Mujahideen lots of that funding and weaponry went to people like Osama Bin Laden where he amassed a following and popular support in the muslim world.

[quote] David Patraeus means nothing now.

The article doesn’t support what you said. It says IF we support Al-Nursa it’s a bad move.

Also, the article says we are bombing extremist groups in Syria. Are we bombing them, or aiding them? Which is it? [/quote]

We did support Al Nusra and IS (yes genius yet again IS are in Syria) and Islamic Jihad in Syria and Libya. We openly funded extremist groups who were involved in the civil wars. We then stopped funding them after we had rescued them from the brink of being crushed to being the main rebel groups in the region controlling massive amounts of territory.

Then they predictably started beheading westerners and doing what anyone with half a brain knew they would do. The U.S then started bombing IS and Al Nusra, after funding and arming them.

Yet again a masterstroke of blowback from the U.S and GB. Now people like Petraeus and other people are calling for a reliance with Al Qaeda in a fucking tom and jerry plan to get Al Nusra fighters to defect to a less extreme (but still extreme) Islamist group who Al Nusra recently smashed.

Assad did not back ISIS. We backed ISIS against Assad. Stop with this childish make believe. When were AQI our allies? When we funded them when AQI moved into Syria in the form of Al nusra and IS. They were being crushed and were pretty much irrelevant until we gave them military support, fudning and arms.

We then panicked when they took massive territory in both Iraq and Syria and started beheading westerners. We then started bombing them and tyring to fund the more moderate groups in Syria and Iraq and started working and funding the Shia as a counter play.

Whenw ere we AQI allies? Really? Amnesia?

For the same reason every single Islamist group we sponsor does so, we are not moral allies based on shared ideology, we idiotically support them against our enemies and then panic like retards when they do what they always were doing, however now after our funding and arming they are more powerful and come after us.

Why do you think? Just because they were against Assad did not mean they were pro America.

[quote]loppar wrote:
It seems this particular desperate individual fleeing war and destruction is sorely disappointed by the carbohydrate heavy meals provided by my country and decided to move on towards Germany after such a horrible affront (starts at 0:44).

[/quote]

Croatia seems to be showing its true colours. Surely you don’t think Croatia’s behaviour is acceptable? The international community sure don’t infact the only ones cheering it are the extreme right of eastern europe employing extreme rhetoric like (Muslim Hordes) .

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

For the same reason every single Islamist group we sponsor does so, we are not moral allies based on shared ideology, we idiotically support them against our enemies and then panic like retards when they do what they always were doing, however now after our funding and arming they are more powerful and come after us.

Why do you think? Just because they were against Assad did not mean they were pro America.
[/quote]
Assad gave AQI safe passage into Iraq during the war, or didn’t you know that? So we funded a group we were at war with for 10 years? Interesting. Links please because I disagree. Obama called Isis the jv team, America may have wanted to back moderates but I never heard we backed AQI.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

For the same reason every single Islamist group we sponsor does so, we are not moral allies based on shared ideology, we idiotically support them against our enemies and then panic like retards when they do what they always were doing, however now after our funding and arming they are more powerful and come after us.

Why do you think? Just because they were against Assad did not mean they were pro America.
[/quote]
Assad gave AQI safe passage into Iraq during the war, or didn’t you know that? So we funded a group we were at war with for 10 years? Interesting. Links please because I disagree. Obama called Isis the jv team, America may have wanted to back moderates but I never heard we backed AQI. [/quote]

No he didn’t he didn’t give safe passage to the group going there to destroy him. Stop making nonsense up because you are drowning.

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
No he didn’t he didn’t give safe passage to the group going there to destroy him. Stop making nonsense up because you are drowning.[/quote]

Please read the link I posted above.

and this one:

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Zarqawi Network

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has long benefited from a network of associates in Syria, which it uses to facilitate travel to Iraq. In a 2003 investigation of foreign fighter recruiters operating out of Italy, prosecutors noted that “Syria has functioned as a hub for an al-Qaida network.”

Never, huh?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
No he didn’t he didn’t give safe passage to the group going there to destroy him. Stop making nonsense up because you are drowning.[/quote]

Please read the link I posted above.

and this one:

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Zarqawi Network

Al-Qaeda in Iraq has long benefited from a network of associates in Syria, which it uses to facilitate travel to Iraq. In a 2003 investigation of foreign fighter recruiters operating out of Italy, prosecutors noted that “Syria has functioned as a hub for an al-Qaida network.”

Never, huh?

[/quote]

Iraq acted as an Al Qaeda hub, didn’t mean Saddam allowed it or gave them a pass. You are making up something then citing the fact Al Qaeda were is Syria as proof Assad let them. This is however, rather reaching. Assad had a history of killing any Sunni extremists he can get his hands on.

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Iraq acted as an Al Qaeda hub, didn’t mean Saddam allowed it or gave them a pass. You are making up something then citing the fact Al Qaeda were is Syria as proof Assad let them. This is however, rather reaching. Assad had a history of killing any Sunni extremists he can get his hands on. [/quote]

I’m not making it up. I posted 2 articles to back up my claim. Are the authors or the articles & their sources making it up as well?

Everyone’s wrong you’re right? Is that it?

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Iraq acted as an Al Qaeda hub, didn’t mean Saddam allowed it or gave them a pass. [/quote]

Syria is where the terrorists went to get access to Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with it. He was in prison at the time.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Iraq acted as an Al Qaeda hub, didn’t mean Saddam allowed it or gave them a pass. [/quote]

Syria is where the terrorists went to get access to Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with it. He was in prison at the time.[/quote]

You are side stepping my point, just because Iraq had been and Syria was a hub for Al Qaeda, does not mean Assad gave ISIS a free entry, it simply mens they went there. You claimed Assad let them enter. This has no evidence to support it and is highly illogical.

For example AQAP members often went to Iran, Iran wasn’t welcoming to them nor did it let them stay, they were enemies, Iran was simply an AQAP hub because they went there to then get to Saudi Arabia. That does not mean the Iranian regime gave them free entry or any other nonsense.

You made a leap of faith.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Iraq acted as an Al Qaeda hub, didn’t mean Saddam allowed it or gave them a pass. You are making up something then citing the fact Al Qaeda were is Syria as proof Assad let them. This is however, rather reaching. Assad had a history of killing any Sunni extremists he can get his hands on. [/quote]

I’m not making it up. I posted 2 articles to back up my claim. Are the authors or the articles & their sources making it up as well?

Everyone’s wrong you’re right? Is that it?

[/quote]

The articles were not wrong, you attached assertion about assad was.

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

The articles were not wrong, you attached assertion about assad was.
[/quote]

lol.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Do you not see any connection between the way the refugee’s are acting and their treatment by the authorities in many places like Hungary? Desperate people tend to act rather desperately. For example when you see on the news police beating the shit out of people holding babies and children with Saliva and tears streaming down their face from tear gas, it does not seem like they are rioting over nothing.

Some of the police actions have been gross overreactions. Especially the baton beating they gave to that elderly man holding a small child. Other stuff like the conditions at the camps as was filmed which caused popular outrage seem to point to reasonable anger from the refugees.[/quote]

I can’t speak for Hungary but I have to stress that here migrants are fighting AMONG THEMSELVES. Local police are under strict orders not to use force, as can be seen from the meek reactions of the officers in the clips above.

Even the guy who hit a reported in the head with a rock has not been detained.

The migrants are VERY belligerent, on the evening of the first day the problems started when they refused to board a train for a detention center, insisting on being driven in buses instead and threatening to tear the railway station down.

When they protest, they tend to refuse food and water distributed by NGOs and Red Cross volunteers. This usually means that men prevent women and children from getting provisions.

As I’ve worked in the Gulf and speak a smattering of Arabic I spoke to a upper middle class family from Damascus - they’re nice people but it’s incredible, it’s like Germany is hard-wired into their brain. One of the biggest problems I foresee is that they have wildly unrealistic expectations about life in Germany and the amount of help they will get.

I think Germany will have to deal with thousands of disaffected immigrants down the line.
[/quote]

I think this is the most balanced account of a Syrian refugee in Germany. Read some of his points of response, he addresses most of your worries, some of them he is more close to your point of view than mine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3kos3j/iama_syrian_immigrant_in_germany_ama/[/quote]

4- “Are there ISIS jihadists among the refugees?”
Yes, that is quite a high possibility.

I would like to point out that this was my worry in the first place, and it has been verified by a Syrian as a legitimate concern.

“3- “You are coming in mass numbers, you’re backwards and will commit many crimes…”
Yup, many people came in mass numbers, but we won’t commit crimes, why do you think all these people are criminals? if in Syria, where the judicial and executive branches are well corrupted, and poverty is wide spread, crime wasn’t common at all, at least in my region, so why exactly would these people have a change of heart in a more welcoming and safe country?”

This response does not engender much confidence, either.

If these people are not processed properly, this will be the mother of all bad decisions. [/quote]

i don’t think anyone is saying there is no threat that IS will send men over, the issue is there are elements claiming large amounts of these desperate people are actually jihadists and that we should not let them seek refuge in our lands.

Some Irish immigrants were involved in Republican plots in England. That does not mean the logical or moral thing to do is ban all Irish immigrants from settling in England, because that sort of collective punishment is bigoted and is not compatible with the great cultural identity of the west, which despite all its bad actions in the past is the best hope of the world.

[/quote]

Processing is not a collective punishment, it is basic, rational immigration policy. Besides, the differences between the IRA and Islamism have been mentioned before in this thread. One is apocalyptic, the other is not. [/quote]

IRA bombings and other terrorist attacks have killed more people in England than Muslim terrorism, and was just as random regarding the victims, such as toddlers, pensioners etc killed. Complete innocents. We didn’t use these atrocities to implement such policies against the irish settling here. Many of whom were refugees from the violence in Ireland.

That does not even include all the other terror attacks in England nevermind the ones in NI.[/quote]

It occurs to me that there’s no reason to try and wake you up from your fantasy world.

If you want those refugees in your country, you’re more than welcome to them.

Hopefully, the U.S. will have more sense.
[/quote]

Seeing as the US lead the war that caused most of these people to become displaced, I would of thought Americans might have the common decency to take some off the hands of Germany and the rest of Europe. Coalition of the willing my arse.

Launch wars, create a vacuum, displace millions then just wash your hands of the whole thing and take no responsibility for housing the displaced and refugees looking to escape the region American intervention made 10 times worse.

God bless America!
[/quote]

LOL!

You only have a high opinion of the U.S. when it then allows you to be “disappointed” by us.

How perfectly that fits with America Is Responsible For Every Bad Thing In The World.

Enjoy your refugees!
[/quote]

Dismissing valid criticisms with defensive claims of “you just want to blame us for everything” is tantamount to whitewashing our history and present foreign policy which has a negative affect all around the world.

People who do this ironically want to blame everyone but America and Europe for everything and paint ourselves as benevolent moral bastions of freedom. Ignoring our history of overthrowing democracies, arming dictators, destabilising regions and launching wars that kill so many people in the developing world.

You can do that if you want but it has no basis in reality. It also makes everyone hate us when we pretend the crimes we committed never happened. If you never learn from past mistakes you just generate more and more blowback from the policies we propagate.

Also, are you not yourself an immigrant?

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

So America supported and gave Sadam chemical weapons and sold him arms and stayed an ally of his while he was gassing kurds and invading Iran and gassing people. Then we suddenly became anti-dictator and overthrew him and that makes us the good guys and our intentions benign and good?

America and the UK dealt with Gadafi, gave him info on Libyan dissidents in Libya and the west, colluded with him, then overthrew him and we get to claim moral ground on this? Again, are you being purposefully ignorant?

[/quote]

What about Russia?

They are now moving troops into Syria in support of a DICTATOR.

They are also there to protect a NAVAL BASE in Syria.

They also supported said dictator’s father when he GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.

The Russians also support the Iranian Regime whose goal is a global jihad movement.

In the 80’s & 90’s the Russians invaded Muslim lands and overthrew several dictators.

How do you feel about the Russians in regard to these things?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

So America supported and gave Sadam chemical weapons and sold him arms and stayed an ally of his while he was gassing kurds and invading Iran and gassing people. Then we suddenly became anti-dictator and overthrew him and that makes us the good guys and our intentions benign and good?

America and the UK dealt with Gadafi, gave him info on Libyan dissidents in Libya and the west, colluded with him, then overthrew him and we get to claim moral ground on this? Again, are you being purposefully ignorant?

[/quote]

What about Russia?

They are now moving troops into Syria in support of a DICTATOR.

They are also there to protect a NAVAL BASE in Syria.

They also supported said dictator’s father when he GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.

The Russians also support the Iranian Regime whose goal is a global jihad movement.

In the 80’s & 90’s the Russians invaded Muslim lands and overthrew several dictators.

How do you feel about the Russians in regard to these things?
[/quote]

What is it about us as a society that when offered self criticism we go bb bbuuu buuuttt what about these other people doing heinous objectionable shit?

Yeah, unsurprisingly I don’t support Russia or it’s foreign policy history or it’s political system. You can criticise the U.S and Europe without supporting Russia, or China etc.

Good guy Cristiano Ronaldo taking that kid whose dad was tripped up while holding him by the journalist, out on the walk on for the game:

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/494055-syrian-refugee-walks-out-ronaldo-to-game.html

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Yeah, unsurprisingly I don’t support Russia or it’s foreign policy history or it’s political system. You can criticise the U.S and Europe without supporting Russia, or China etc.

[/quote]

Point taken.

Now read my last post on International Jihad & The West’s response.

That’s my take a lot of this.

Once again, apologize for the hijack, let’s get back to the refugee problem!!

US has agreed to take 85,000 refugees in 2016, 100,000 in 2017.