Jump to content

Immigration/Refugee Thread


Axl owns dexter

Recommended Posts

We shouldn't be burdened with taking them in. If we're going to expend resources, they should go towards safe zones in the country in question. Just because their country is shitty, doesn't mean we should make our country shittier taking them in. I'm all for helping out, but we have domestic issues as it is to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Tell the women who have been raped by Islamic refugees/immigrants about how decent this all is. I guess to make an omelette you have to crack a few eggs, right comrade?

Also, I didn't cheerlead for these dumb wars (and I'm guessing neither have those women who have been raped) so I shouldn't be punished with these refugees. 

 

Women get raped by non "Islamic" refugees/immigrants too. Women get raped by men. Should they just lock all the men up? What about the women and children who are refugees? I guess they are raping women too? 

 

Get real man, you make a risk the moment you walk out of your home and start your engine. You even risk staying home all day, chances are your roof can collapse on you. 

2 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

We shouldn't be burdened with taking them in. If we're going to expend resources, they should go towards safe zones in the country in question. Just because their country is shitty, doesn't mean we should make our country shittier taking them in. I'm all for helping out, but we have domestic issues as it is to deal with.

 

So who's going to pay for these safe zones? How are we going to make them "Safe?" Either way it costs money, but if they resettle here, go to work they can be a benefit rather than a burden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's going to pay? Well if I recall the Donald, between grabbing women by the pussy and presumedly eating babies, convinced the Saudis to pledge toward safe zones in Syria and Yemen. Think of the cost to settle a refugee here, vs how far that money would go in Syria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about dogs?

Dogs are forbidden in Islam. They consider them unclean and impure. Torture poison and murder them.

UK:

Spoiler

C68qJ0cWgAQWTRh.jpg

That's not even a joke.

Muslims poison dogs in Sweden with laced sausages:

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/muslims-poison-dogs-in-sweden-with-laced-sausages/

US:

http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/09/another-st-paul-dog-sickened-by-rat-poison-laced-bread/

Spain:

The Nature Protection Service and the police in the Catalan city of Lérida have acknowledged that they are investigating the deaths by poisoning of at least 15 dogs in the La Bordeta district of the city. La Bordeta is known for its dense population of immigrants, many of the Mohammedan persuasion. Mohammedans consider dogs to be "ritually unclean" and anti-dog campaigns have been noted on various Spanish-language Muslim websites. 
There are also reports of dog owners being threatened and harassed by Muslims while taking their pets for a walk.

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/politica/249648-lerida-moros-envenenan-a-15-perros.html

Turkey:

Woman Brutally Beaten for the ‘Sin’ of Walking Her Dog

“Many cats and dogs in several neighborhoods across Canakkale were poisoned to death after eating pieces of meat that had been injected with high doses of pesticides and scattered throughout the streets in the city,” 

https://clarionproject.org/woman-brutally-beaten-for-the-sin-of-walking-her-dog/#.WMBI9g28OWE.twitter

 

BUT HEY..........

C4QW2dIWIAIo_Fi.jpg

Edited by Silent Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands. Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are ‘unclean’ animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.

SPAIN, two Islamic groups based in Lérida — a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city’s total population — asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not “offend Muslims.”

ASIA: Muslims don't like the word 'Hot Dog' because Islam hates dogs - demands the food be renamed :http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37700495

Austria: muslim woman to local person: "Go away with that dog, I'm a muslim"!

UK: Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs. This is an Islamic area now.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644058/Do-not-walk-dog-Muslims-not-like-dogs-Fury-poster-discovered-near-popular-London-park-warns-dog-walkers-stay-Islamic-areas.html#ixzz4cPfQu3Dx

UK: Muslim supermarket staff tell blind woman 'No exceptions, get dog out' https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1413495729

CANADA:

Spoiler

In a recent incident a 27-year-old man taking three dogs for a walk along with his 49-year-old mother was attacked by a mob of 25-30 Muslims from North Africa. “We were there with the dogs and suddenly loads of Muslims appeared. They hit my son a lot and they shook me”. The police were called but the Muslims attacked them too and reinforcements had to be called in. Eventually, the police managed to get the family into a doorway and were able to protect them there.
“On Saturday night two Muslims [female] hit my niece. They attacked her because they want this plaza for themselves”. “They said daughter of a whore, b**** to her,” she adds because she was walking with an “impure animal”. 
“I’ll kill your dog, I’ll kill your dog, the dog and the whole family”, they were shouting. “All of them were punching and kicking us”, she adds. “They were choking my son, all of this is scratched, the arms, legs”. “And they were shaking me from all sides. On Monday it was if my skin was burnt”. 
The outcome of this brawl resulted in two officers injured and four (Muslims) detained. The attacked family turned to Alerta Digital to express their fear of reprisals from the Muslims. Even during the brawl, the Muslims threatened them with cutting their necks, all this in the presence of the officers, who were just looking numbly.
“I was arrested at the rally for, “offending Islam” by walking in a PUBLIC park with my dog. Apparently, Muslims do not like dogs. I was warned by a few demonstrators not to go near them. Of course I ignored them and reminded them this is Canada, not Pakistan. 

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2012/08/muslims-attacking-people-walking-their-dogs-this-is-sharia.html

See, they get offended by something that's been part of the native culture forever. People point out that it's been always like this and that the immigrants should tolerate the native culture.

They complain loudly and call racism and intolerance. Bleeding heart liberals notice it and immediately side with them.

Edited by Silent Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AxlisOld said:

Who's going to pay? Well if I recall the Donald, between grabbing women by the pussy and presumedly eating babies, convinced the Saudis to pledge toward safe zones in Syria and Yemen. Think of the cost to settle a refugee here, vs how far that money would go in Syria. 

The same Saudis committing war crimes in Yemen?

As for Silent posting UK stories from the Express/Mail who end up issuing quiet retractions for half the nonsense they put out every other week. Public purity story was a 4chan hoax.

Edited by AtariLegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muslims don't like dogs!!! And they rape women and children.

Well, last time I checked, men in general rape women and children. Go check your official crime statistics from whatever country you choose in how far this crime rate rose with immigrants and/or refugees. (It didn't.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tori72 said:

Muslims don't like dogs!!! And they rape women and children.

Well, last time I checked, men in general rape women and children. Go check your official crime statistics from whatever country you choose in how far this crime rate rose with immigrants and/or refugees. (It didn't.)

 

In germany it did. Crimes that include sexual harassment rose more then other crimes since the migration crisis began. Its a typical left wing strategy to criminalize all men rather then accepting the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Georgy Zhukov said:

 

Women get raped by non "Islamic" refugees/immigrants too. Women get raped by men. Should they just lock all the men up? What about the women and children who are refugees? I guess they are raping women too? 

 

Get real man, you make a risk the moment you walk out of your home and start your engine. You even risk staying home all day, chances are your roof can collapse on you. 

 

So who's going to pay for these safe zones? How are we going to make them "Safe?" Either way it costs money, but if they resettle here, go to work they can be a benefit rather than a burden. 

The difference in the rapes are one instance is completely preventable if these islamic migrants weren't let in. 

Why do they have to resettle here? They can resettle in other Islamic countries. I'm sure they'd like it a lot more to not live with us infidels. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have settled other "Islamic" countries dude. Problem is that not all these countries have the resources to obtain all refugees. Jordan has taken them in at their economic breaking point, almost 3 million people, I believe Lebanon has taken even more and Turkey has the most. Another thing to consider that some countries with Muslim majority are more strict than others and Syrians are usually Moderates. In Syria a woman can wear a bikini to the beach and not risk getting arrested by the religion police. It is a Muslim majority country. They wouldn't have that freedom in Saudi Arabia. Parts of the UAE allows it. Perhaps many moderates would feel better going to a country that allows more religious freedom such as Germany, Sweden, Canada and the USA. They don't want to live under various forms of Sharia Law. They would rather live in a country with effective government, law and order and religious freedom.

 

It is the responsibility of the government to integrate people coming from countries with vast cultural differences. It is logic. If you go to another country, you have to obey the laws. You break the law, you will be punished. Immigrants should follow the laws the same as citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a simple answer, how about fucking off out of other peoples countries and not bringing war to every fuckers doorstep who you've got some kind of monetary interest in invading/occupying/regime-changing, then you wouldn't have to treat 'Islamic migrants' like human cattle and sit around in your safe heated houses having a moan about what their unwanted arses will bring to your doorstep because guess what?  The only reason they're on your doorstep is cuz your equally unwanted arses landed on their doorstep and blew seven different types of shit out of their homes.  There's a tidy little answer to the refugee question.  I know i know, there's less money in it but you can't have your cake and shag it I'm afraid, it's one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 23, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Axl owns dexter said:

Why are London, New York, and Paris such big targets of terror but Tokyo isn't?

They aren't as big as targets for terrorism as Iraq, Syria and Somalia.

But the reasons London, New York and Paris are such big targets are many, including previous and ongoing acts of aggression, imperialism and colonialism by the Nations those cities are part of.  Like say , how England and US left the power vacuum in Iraq.

For those same reasons the rogue Nation of North Korea is aiming its missiles at Tokyo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think in a way refugee camps just try to plaster over what we are doing. So people back home don't have to deal with the consequences of who they voted for. But maybe the culture shock is too much. 

The media doesn't talk about the connection between our aggressive foreign policies and refugees. Generally people seem to have no idea why Syria sucks. Why that whole area desceded into chaos. We have an inkling which we feel like might be a conspiracy theory. 

One way to do it seems to be to pretend we aren't at war and are the saviours by taking refugees. Drone strikes and funding rebel groups isn't front page news because there's nothing to hang it on. Why are we doing that? They are terrorists. That's really just a media thing. Terrorism seems like it was created by the media to justify the wars. 

Part of reason the UK is allowed to borrow so much money is that we take a lot of immigration. Blair used it to import voters the same way they do in the US. That was part of the EU deal. If we don't play along they won't lend us the money. 

The Trump way seems more like to openly say we are at war and it's not our problem. Which is more honest in a way. Hiding world domination behind this we are the world thing is very tricky. Maybe it is like the utopian ideal but maybe the reality is that cultures are very different and the people it affects have to deal with these circumstances. But in a way our better standard living has been based on winning two world wars and the military controlling the world. 

You suspect if we pull out of the middle east then Russia would benefit from it and a stronger Russia means less for us. 

But as it is with all the trillons that go into these wars, I don't see the benefits for the US people. I'm not saying they don't exist, they might do. Might just be control of the world, but I don't see a direct cash flow back to America. Nobody justifies the war like if we do this taxes will be lower or we'll make this money from it. What is the upside of having perpertual conflict in the ME? What is the goal there. It seems like it gets changed into an immigration issue. 

Edited by wasted
Add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:


That being said how is Sweden for example at all responsible?

 

They're not in any way shape or form, nor is the general population of any country I'm just saying that if people wanna sling criticism and then pretend like they're looking for solutions I have an easy one, some of those same people need to look at the regimes they vote for, support and prop up in whatever way.

Quote

 

What do you think of the idea of setting up safety zones in their countries and protecting and helping them there? (I don't mean all of them and preventing all refugees or migrants obviously.)


 

 
I think it's disgusting that it should be required and i don't think it's a workable idea and it's the product of morally bankrupt thinking.  Come to someones country, turn it upside down over oil or proxy war for your financial interests and then set up little ghettoes for them for their daily bread and water...and make out like you're doing them a favour.  It's a waste of resources and unsustainable and bad for all parties concerned and behind it is not humanitarian but 'how can we keep these greasy bastards out of our country?'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, soon said:

They aren't as big as targets for terrorism as Iraq, Syria and Somalia.

But the reasons London, New York and Paris are such big targets are many, including previous and ongoing acts of aggression, imperialism and colonialism by the Nations those cities are part of.  Like say , how England and US left the power vacuum in Iraq.

For those same reasons the rogue Nation of North Korea is aiming its missiles at Tokyo.

 

 

Tokyo would be a target if they get involved in the wars. Instead Tokyo like you said is a target for Pyongyang. 

 

Beijing will find itself being a target if they keep up with this oppression of the Uyghurs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's a closed system really. The media are like the propaganda wing of the military. 

All the trillons we put into the wars. Where does the money go? It doesn't come back into country. Otherwise we wouldn't have to borrow money all the time to run the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AxlisOld said:

It is also the responsibility of the refugees to integrate into the country in which they enter. They have a right to retain their culture, not to change someone else's.

 

They still have to obey the law of the land. They are not going to change anyone else's culture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothern european countries have had it to too easy for too long. Until there's 6 people in 35 m2 boxes you haven't done enough for world peace. 

But yeah I get it northern europe is like the last bastion of tranquility in the world. It's a shame to lose that.

Especially to line the pockets of these people we don't know. 

We had a good run. I was thinking maybe automation may solve a lot of problems. If robots do all the work then they won't need wars to profit from. They can just take more from consumers. Give us Money to buy processed garbage. If entertainment was free we could keep large groups of people happy. 

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Jeez thanks for assuming the worst of me lol...that I'd confine them to little ghettos! :lol: What I meant by safety zones and protecting them in their own countries is like cordoning off entire sections of their countries like entire cities. Not shitty little internment camps. A balance between that and letting them into multiple countries to share the load so that countries like Sweden aren't overwhelmed. How sustainable is it to let huge numbers of people pour into a handful of places like Sweden?

From what I've said you seriously think I'm the type of person who thinks 'how can we keep the greasy bastards out of our country?' Fucking hell.

I didnt know it was an idea of yours, i thought it was some sort of actual proposal :lol:  Either way i dont think it's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I didnt know it was an idea of yours, i thought it was some sort of actual proposal :lol:  Either way i dont think it's work.

Why not? Not saying it will be easy, but the situation that we are in now, doesn't have an easy solution either.

Doesn't it seem better to have refugees closer to their home (in humaner conditions!) than having them risk their lives traveling through Europe where there's a culture clash? I know I'd rather stay in, I don't know, France, until the war is over than having to cross the Mediterranean to end up in the Middle-East where I don't know anything, not the country, not the customs, not the language etc.

I mean, I know it's not a cut and dried solution, but to me, it seems much better in  the long run than what we're doing now, which is always short term vision. We are assuming most of those refugees are here not because they want to be here so badly, but because they feel it's safer here than, there, right? So why not try to give them that safety closer to home? Or have we given up on ever getting peace completely now, and are we thinking they'll never be able to go back again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...