DescentBB

Here comes the wave of muslim "migrants..."

[youtube]BQhjB5hAzsc[/youtube]

I've been interested to see how this subject is being portrayed in the American Media, and how citizens over there feel about it, or if they know even what's going on. I wondered when one of you would pick it up.

Flabby Chick wrote:I've been interested to see how this subject is being portrayed in the American Media, and how citizens over there feel about it, or if they know even what's going on. I wondered when one of you would pick it up.

I've been following it for some time now.

So Flabby- do you think Israel should take some of the refugees from Syria (and elsewhere) or do you think the government's stated policy of keeping every single one of them out is a good idea?

Of course Israel will be condemned no matter what happens, but I'd like the opinion of an actual Israeli. In my view, Israel is only doing this out of self-preservation (as usual.)

(There has been some coverage of the crisis in the American media, but none of the negative images or video of the violence that has followed these muslim migrants.)

TB,first off, why would you put 'migrants' in parentheses? These people are fleeing a hellish reality, partially created by George Bush and Dick Cheney's foreign 'vision'. What they are should be rightly called refugees. You suggest, wrongly, to Flabby that our coverage here is sparse. It has dominated the International News section of my local papers for WEEKS. Likewise most all of the major cable news outlets, when Trump permits them some time to dedicate.
My opinion on Israel refusing them? Meh. Israel has enough woes with the population it has and that which it subjugates. Adding more folks to the mix wouldn't seem a good solution for either camp. Likewise, I've read a few screeds in recent days decrying the fact that no refugees are going to or accepted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc. Apparently, it doesn't occur to some folks that fleeing SOUTH through ISIS held territory might not be the route one wishes to take with ones' family.
Finally, NONE of these people really had some goal of migrating into Europe two or three years ago, or at least virtually none. As someone noted the other day, when the water becomes safer than the land you're living on, THAT is a desperate situation.

ThunderBunny wrote:So Flabby- do you think Israel should take some of the refugees from Syria (and elsewhere) or do you think the government's stated policy of keeping every single one of them out is a good idea?

There are two field hospitals a forty minuet drive to the north that take in the wounded from the infighting, fix them up or pass them along to the major hospitals in the cities, i think they're repatriated afterwords but don't quote me on that. As for taking in Syrian refugees, i doubt they would want to come judging shock the aforementioned wounded felt when they saw we don't have horns and eat babies. But if there was a mass population exodus fleeing an isis type slaughter i feel Israel would be morally obligated to allow them entry and protect them. Just imagine the headlines though, the jews place a population into specially built camps for processing. CNN would have a wet dream. By the way we do have refugees here from Sudan and Eritrea who crossed the southern border and we're completely useless on how to deal with them.

Hmmm i didn't think there was press about this kind of thing, seems i was wrong.


My son serves in one of the units mentioned. Israeli media (one of my pet hates) but you get the picture.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 48,00.html

callmeslick wrote:TB,first off, why would you put 'migrants' in parentheses? These people are fleeing a hellish reality, partially created by George Bush and Dick Cheney's foreign 'vision'. What they are should be rightly called refugees. You suggest, wrongly, to Flabby that our coverage here is sparse. It has dominated the International News section of my local papers for WEEKS. Likewise most all of the major cable news outlets, when Trump permits them some time to dedicate.
My opinion on Israel refusing them? Meh. Israel has enough woes with the population it has and that which it subjugates. Adding more folks to the mix wouldn't seem a good solution for either camp. Likewise, I've read a few screeds in recent days decrying the fact that no refugees are going to or accepted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc. Apparently, it doesn't occur to some folks that fleeing SOUTH through ISIS held territory might not be the route one wishes to take with ones' family.
Finally, NONE of these people really had some goal of migrating into Europe two or three years ago, or at least virtually none. As someone noted the other day, when the water becomes safer than the land you're living on, THAT is a desperate situation.

What a load of horse pucky. Like a good little Dem operative you try to steer the problem to Bush. Well lets set the record straight. It was Obama and his inept foreign policy abilities that got the ball rolling. Remember in Obamas big rush to pull ALL our troops out of Iraq to appease his liberal political base? Do you remember in that same rush to leave that Obama never got around to signing a Status of Forces agreement? Iraq was stable back then and ISIS was not yet invented.

Then when the Syrian uprising was first going on Obama did nothing to support the rebels that would of been friendly to us (kinda like how Obama never supported the student uprising in Iran...do you remember that?) and then drew a red line in the sand...which he failed to honor. Yeah all this is Bush's fault. Then you have Hillary Clinton that decided that Libya had to have the one guy who was a ally...and able to control the country, be eliminated. Smart move by the worlds smartest women. So today you have chaos in the middle east forcing millions to flee that only a few years ago we didn't have such a scenario. Yeah lets keep hoisting the Bush meme in the hopes we are gulled into not seeing who the real culprit is.

callmeslick wrote:TB,first off, why would you put 'migrants' in parentheses? These people are fleeing a hellish reality, partially created by George Bush and Dick Cheney's foreign 'vision'.

Oh, I see. So it's Bush's fault again.

It isn't the Obama administration that's been in power since 2009 (and helped destabilize nations like Libya through an Arab "spring" they were encouraging actively...) No, not one little bit!

If a thread was started on the subject of lemon meringue, would it also wind it's way back to republican/democratic stuff also?

Probably.

[mod] Guys, the stated topic here is policy regarding muslim refugees. [/mod]

Flabby Chick wrote:If a thread was started on the subject of lemon meringue, would it also wind it's way back to republican/democratic stuff also?

yes, because it's the DBB.

*sorry foil, but we all can see the big wall of thread-death coming by now.

still never got an answer to why 'migrants' was put in quotes. Never got a lucid answer to any of the other parts, either. Apparently the focus is on one sentence of background history, which was accurate.

callmeslick wrote:still never got an answer to why 'migrants' was put in quotes. Never got a lucid answer to any of the other parts, either

Do you think it's productive to try to get an answer on that point? Or will it merely confirm something you already know and don't really need confirmed? Is there a better topic you could manufacture out of this one, rather than pushing for the "big wall of thread-death" that Ferno thinks is inevitable?

I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam." It's no secret that anti-Islamic propaganda in the United States is carried out to reduce a little the growth of the US population Islamization among white Christian Americans, including American soldiers. According to different surveys each year, Islam takes about 20,000 Americans, 50,000 British, 4 thousand Germans. It is also no secret that as a rule, former White Christians in the US and Europe are taking the most dangerous extremist version of Islam.

Lothar wrote: Do you think it's productive to try to get an answer on that point? Or will it merely confirm something you already know and don't really need confirmed? Is there a better topic you could manufacture out of this one, rather than pushing for the "big wall of thread-death" that Ferno thinks is inevitable?

well, if I can't get an answer to that, or if the answer is so obvious as to be predictable, how does this thread last more than one post in?

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote: Do you think it's productive to try to get an answer on that point? Or will it merely confirm something you already know and don't really need confirmed? Is there a better topic you could manufacture out of this one, rather than pushing for the "big wall of thread-death" that Ferno thinks is inevitable?

well, if I can't get an answer to that, or if the answer is so obvious as to be predictable, how does this thread last more than one post in?

The second and third posts were on a good trajectory.

What do you hope to accomplish by asking about the scare quotes around 'migrant'? Do you think that will make for a better conversation than the one FC and TB were starting to have about Israeli refugee policy?

(For those getting ready to go all meta on me: do I think discussing this will improve this conversation? Maybe. Do I think hammering the point regularly will improve conversations as a whole over time? Definitely.)

Lothar wrote:

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

At least now I understand why your avatar is the inscription Allāhu Akbar .

Lothar wrote:

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

Just curious Lothar-

Were the muslim members of your family part of that religion before the year 2000 or after?

you've got half of it right.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Lothar wrote:

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

Just curious Lothar-

Were the muslim members of your family part of that religion before the year 2000 or after?

They converted in the 1980s, I believe.

Lothar wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

Lothar wrote:

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

Just curious Lothar-

Were the muslim members of your family part of that religion before the year 2000 or after?

They converted in the 1980s, I believe.

I sincerely hope that your religion does not become higher than the secular law, as is customary at the true Muslims.

sigma wrote:I sincerely hope that your religion does not become higher than the secular law, as is customary at the true Muslims.

you might wish to follow events going on in Kentucky. It is hardly an issue limited to Muslims.

sigma wrote:

Lothar wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

Lothar wrote:

sigma wrote:I suspect that this post will be removed (because it is unpatriotic to discuss such issues for Americans), and yet I remind you that there is such a thing as "white Islam."

Why do you think that's controversial to talk about?

There's an entire Muslim branch of my family, and we're the whitest people you know.

Just curious Lothar-

Were the muslim members of your family part of that religion before the year 2000 or after?

They converted in the 1980s, I believe.

I sincerely hope that your religion does not become higher than the secular law, as is customary at the true Muslims.

"Your" is the wrong word. "Their" is the right word.

As far as I can tell, that branch of the family is fairly moderate Muslims. We all got along OK -- Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- at grandpa's funeral, at least.

Okay, Lothar, I understand. You believe, but in another religion. Here's a good example, how can peacefully coexist, even close relatives, who have chosen a different religion for itself!

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:I sincerely hope that your religion does not become higher than the secular law, as is customary at the true Muslims.

you might wish to follow events going on in Kentucky. It is hardly an issue limited to Muslims.

I get lost in conjecture... Russia has resorted to retaliatory economic sanctions on the import of Bourbon from Kentucky? I don't live in Kentucky, , Slick. I'm not in the loop what you mean.

Sigma, I was referring to current news here, wherein a county clerk in the state of Kentucky(home to bourbon, so kudos to you!) has been refusing to issue marriage licenses, now that such licenses are to be granted to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. She is making the claim, along with many radical anti-Constitutional politicians, that God's law trumps National law. Just what you claim to be the case with Muslims over there.

callmeslick wrote:still never got an answer to why 'migrants' was put in quotes. Never got a lucid answer to any of the other parts, either. Apparently the focus is on one sentence of background history, which was accurate.

'Migrants' because it seems rather out of balance for a true exodus of complete families: 75% men, 12% women and 13% children.



It seems more an invasion than people taking refuge. Granted, young men are more mobile and strong enough to make the journey- but the numbers are insanely huge. They are also combatant aged and ISIS has already boasted it has sent its own sleepers and recruiters in with the hordes of muslims making the journey.

When they make it into Europe (mostly to Germany) and find themselves still jobless and homeless- they will become more rioters, looters and criminals in the streets (as they have become in France.)

Source: UNHCR http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.html

young men are the ones immediately executed, too.

Lothar wrote: the "big wall of thread-death" that Ferno knows is inevitable?

just a matter of time now. FIFY btw.

callmeslick wrote: She is making the claim, along with many radical anti-Constitutional politicians, that God's law trumps National law.

No, their religious views trumps national law. There is a difference.

woodchip wrote:
No, their religious views trumps national law. There is a difference.

Yes, there is a difference but is that any more viable an answer? Really? Do tell, how an INDIVIDUAL can, via a claim of personal 'religious views' can trump law affecting ANY others, let alone ALL others.
That is ludicrous if extended to any individual for any case. One cannot infringe upon her practicing or believing whatever she wishes, THAT is
in the Constitution. Forcing her to do her job does not affect that right to her own beliefs. At no point is she allowed to impose her beliefs onto the law as it affects other citizens.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:
No, their religious views trumps national law. There is a difference.

Yes, there is a difference but is that any more viable an answer? Really? Do tell, how an INDIVIDUAL can, via a claim of personal 'religious views' can trump law affecting ANY others, let alone ALL others.
That is ludicrous if extended to any individual for any case. One cannot infringe upon her practicing or believing whatever she wishes, THAT is
in the Constitution. Forcing her to do her job does not affect that right to her own beliefs. At no point is she allowed to impose her beliefs onto the law as it affects other citizens.

I wonder if slick will be just as outraged when muslims try to do the same as this county clerk and impose their beliefs on other citizens in opposition to the U.S. constitution.

ThunderBunny wrote:I wonder if slick will be just as outraged when muslims try to do the same as this county clerk and impose their beliefs on other citizens in opposition to the U.S. constitution.

of course I would. There is just ZERO evidence of anyone even coming close to suggesting doing so.

The Obama Administration is considering taking some of these poor, suffering people into the U.S. Already I'm hearing worries about ISIS slipping in operatives amoungst them to perform terrorist acts in our country. Want to bet terror fears and Muslim xenophobia will squelch those little alturisitic plans?

tunnelcat wrote:The Obama Administration is considering taking some of these poor, suffering people into the U.S. Already I'm hearing worries about ISIS slipping in operatives amoungst them to perform terrorist acts in our country. Want to bet terror fears and Muslim xenophobia will squelch those little alturisitic plans?

and, if you live your life, or expect the nation to conduct itself by avoiding any possible risk even to save lives, terrorism has prevailed already. That said, you are correct, just wait for the GOP campaign trail to see the stupidity played out.

Looks like the U.S. is going to take in 10,000 refugees, far less than humanitarian groups wanted. For a country that touts it's humanitarian ways, I'm waiting to see if Trump (or others) opens his toxic pie hole about it too, despite all the sad images on the news we've been bombarded with lately. But wait, I do have a solution. Get Bushie to build a refugee city on his huge tract of Texas ranch land and hire them to take care of his play ranch. The climate is similar to Syria and at least Bush could make some amends for the crisis he's pretty much responsible for creating.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oba ... story.html

All I've heard about Syria right now is griping about how Russia is sending in troops to help Assad and that we need to put a stop to Putin's land grab. Well, since we haven't put a halt to ISIS in Syria, more power to them.

Amazing how the chants have changed from ‘death to the west’ to ‘All I want is a safe place and a good job’.

I see when the media does interviews with people in the camps it always seems to be some young guy with western leanings…I would like to hear from the crotchety old folks.

As always, the west is the world’s Fagin…' we hate you, we hate you…can you lend us some money'.

Yea, and I wonder how many of these people Russia will take in.

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:The Obama Administration is considering taking some of these poor, suffering people into the U.S. Already I'm hearing worries about ISIS slipping in operatives amoungst them to perform terrorist acts in our country. Want to bet terror fears and Muslim xenophobia will squelch those little alturisitic plans?

and, if you live your life, or expect the nation to conduct itself by avoiding any possible risk even to save lives, terrorism has prevailed already. That said, you are correct, just wait for the GOP campaign trail to see the stupidity played out.

So why can't we do something stupid like the Dems did during WW2 with the Japanese Americans and set up internment camps for the refugees? War ends in Syria and we send them back.

Spidey wrote:Yea, and I wonder how many of these people Russia will take in.

I think that these people will be very surprised that in most parts of Russia can not openly show their belonging to a particular religion or sexual orientation. For example, people wearing the hijab or the burqa on the street will look like a white crow, and passers-by can even call the police to report it. And for example, I would not dare to go out into the street in causing clothes, which will demonstrate that you are a homosexual. This is the same as appear in Harlem with a placard "I hate niggers".

sigma wrote:in most parts of Russia can not openly show their belonging to a particular religion or sexual orientation

Yes, this is one of the things we in the West think is absolutely pathetic about Russia. It is, quite simply, a human rights violation.

Here in the US, you actually do have the legal right to walk around with an "I hate niggers" sign. Usually when people do that sort of thing, they do it as a group and they get police protection, but there's no legal requirement for it.