Rapefugees Crisis

[waauw]

On another note, in Brussels immigrants(who've been here for years) are now stealing the food and clothes donated to the fugitives.

[AndyDufresne]

BTW If you want to talk about other subjects you can freely open a thread about it, no need to hijack my thread. Hopefully your idiotic monkey brain can understand that this is a thread about "migrants" from Middle East and their effect on Macedonia/Europe.

"Migrants"




--Andy

[GoranZ]

Seems like good part of the "refuges" are ISIS soldiers...

People join rebel armies for a wide variety of reasons, some good, some bad.

In a civil war a majority of military-age men will have spent some time fighting on one side or the other. I would be more suspicious of someone who stood by and did nothing while their neighbours died, than someone who took up arms.

Of course you'll find some evil among them, but you'll also find a lot of good, if you take an honest look.

Hmmm I admit I didn't saw this coming, so now ISIS are the good guys?
Ok who are bad ones? Russians or the Chinese

--Andy

You are looking for bananas in wrong place

[GoranZ]

Another "refuge" from the front lines





I guess Bulgaria is playing properly.

[Dukasaur]

Seems like good part of the "refuges" are ISIS soldiers...

People join rebel armies for a wide variety of reasons, some good, some bad.

In a civil war a majority of military-age men will have spent some time fighting on one side or the other. I would be more suspicious of someone who stood by and did nothing while their neighbours died, than someone who took up arms.

Of course you'll find some evil among them, but you'll also find a lot of good, if you take an honest look.

Hmmm I admit I didn't saw this coming, so now ISIS are the good guys?

I didn't say that ISIS are the good guys, but just because somebody serves in an evil army doesn't make him evil. Stalin was the biggest asshole in all of history, but that doesn't mean that every one of the 12 million men who served in the Red Army was an asshole. The vast majority of them were probably nice guys who would have preferred to stay on the farm choking chickens and collecting eggs, but the draft notice came and off to the front they went.

[warmonger1981]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[waauw]

Seems like good part of the "refuges" are ISIS soldiers...

People join rebel armies for a wide variety of reasons, some good, some bad.

In a civil war a majority of military-age men will have spent some time fighting on one side or the other. I would be more suspicious of someone who stood by and did nothing while their neighbours died, than someone who took up arms.

Of course you'll find some evil among them, but you'll also find a lot of good, if you take an honest look.

Hmmm I admit I didn't saw this coming, so now ISIS are the good guys?

I didn't say that ISIS are the good guys, but just because somebody serves in an evil army doesn't make him evil. Stalin was the biggest asshole in all of history, but that doesn't mean that every one of the 12 million men who served in the Red Army was an asshole. The vast majority of them were probably nice guys who would have preferred to stay on the farm choking chickens and collecting eggs, but the draft notice came and off to the front they went.

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

[Phatscotty]

it is an invasion.

btw, how much of this is Obama's fault? Remember the 'red line', remember Obama blinked...

[warmonger1981]

This seems to be a covert operations to destabilize European countries. BBS should weigh in on the economic effects of a mass influx of uneducated refugees on these countries. Why aren't other Middle East countries taking in refugees? Could it be that these countries supported these crazies?

http://time.com/4025187/arab-states-syrian-refugees/

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — with wealth amassed from oil, gas, and finance, collectively have far more resources than the two Arab states that have taken in the most Syrians: Jordan and Lebanon. The Gulf states are Arabic-speaking, have historic ties to Syria and some are embroiled in the current crisis through their support for insurgent groups.

“The missing linkage in this tragic drama is the role of Arab countries, specifically the Gulf countries,” says Fadi al-Qadi, a regional human rights expert in Jordan. “These states have invested money, supported political parties and factions, funded with guns, weapons et cetera, and engaged in a larger political discourse around the crisis.”
The extremist group that is threatening the existence of the Iraqi state was built and grown for years with the help of elite donors from American supposed allies in the Persian Gulf region. There, the threat of Iran, Assad, and the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war trumps the U.S. goal of stability and moderation in the region.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -isis.html

It’s an ironic twist, especially for donors in Kuwait (who, to be fair, back a wide variety of militias). ISIS has aligned itself with remnants of the Baathist regime once led by Saddam Hussein. Back in 1990, the U.S. attacked Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait from Hussein’s clutches. Now Kuwait is helping the rise of his successors.

As ISIS takes over town after town in Iraq, they are acquiring money and supplies including American made vehicles, arms, and ammunition. The group reportedly scored $430 million this week when they looted the main bank in Mosul. They reportedly now have a stream of steady income sources, including from selling oil in the Northern Syrian regions they control, sometimes directly to the Assad regime.

But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes; often, it took advantage of poor money laundering protections in those states, according to officials, experts, and leaders of the Syrian opposition, which is fighting ISIS as well as the regime.

“Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.”

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been publicly accusing Saudi Arabia and Qatar of funding ISIS for months. Several reports have detailed how private Gulf funding to various Syrian rebel groups has splintered the Syrian opposition and paved the way for the rise of groups like ISIS and others.

“The U.S. has made the case as strongly as they can to regional countries, including Kuwait. But ultimately when you take a hands off, leading from behind approach to things, people don’t take you seriously and they take matters into their own hands.”
Gulf donors support ISIS, the Syrian branch of al Qaeda called the al Nusrah Front, and other Islamic groups fighting on the ground in Syria because they feel an obligation to protect Sunnis suffering under the atrocities of the Assad regime. Many of these backers don’t trust or like the American backed moderate opposition, which the West has refused to provide significant arms to.

Under significant U.S. pressure, the Arab Gulf governments have belatedly been cracking down on funding to Sunni extremist groups, but Gulf regimes are also under domestic pressure to fight in what many Sunnis see as an unavoidable Shiite-Sunni regional war that is only getting worse by the day.

“ISIS is part of the Sunni forces that are fighting Shia forces in this regional sectarian conflict. They are in an existential battle with both the (Iranian aligned) Maliki government and the Assad regime,” said Tabler. “The U.S. has made the case as strongly as they can to regional countries, including Kuwait. But ultimately when you take a hands off, leading from behind approach to things, people don’t take you seriously and they take matters into their own hands.”

Donors in Kuwait, the Sunni majority Kingdom on Iraq’s border, have taken advantage of Kuwait’s weak financial rules to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank that receives some funding from the Qatari government.

“Over the last two and a half years, Kuwait has emerged as a financing and organizational hub for charities and individuals supporting Syria’s myriad rebel groups,” the report said. “Today, there is evidence that Kuwaiti donors have backed rebels who have committed atrocities and who are either directly linked to al-Qa’ida or cooperate with its affiliated brigades on the ground.”

Kuwaiti donors collect funds from donors in other Arab Gulf countries and the money often travels through Turkey or Jordan before reaching its Syrian destination, the report said. The governments of Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have passed laws to curb the flow of illicit funds, but many donors still operate out in the open. The Brookings paper argues the U.S. government needs to do more.

“The U.S. Treasury is aware of this activity and has expressed concern about this flow of private financing. But Western diplomats’ and officials’ general response has been a collective shrug,” the report states.

When confronted with the problem, Gulf leaders often justify allowing their Salafi constituents to fund Syrian extremist groups by pointing back to what they see as a failed U.S. policy in Syria and a loss of credibility after President Obama reneged on his pledge to strike Assad after the regime used chemical weapons.

That’s what Prince Bandar bin Sultan, head of Saudi intelligence since 2012 and former Saudi ambassador in Washington, reportedly told Secretary of State John Kerry when Kerry pressed him on Saudi financing of extremist groups earlier this year. Saudi Arabia has retaken a leadership role in past months guiding help to the Syrian armed rebels, displacing Qatar, which was seen as supporting some of the worst of the worst organizations on the ground.

The rise of ISIS, a group that officially broke with al Qaeda core last year, is devastating for the moderate Syrian opposition, which is now fighting a war on two fronts, severely outmanned and outgunned by both extremist groups and the regime. There is increasing evidence that Assad is working with ISIS to squash the Free Syrian Army.

But the Syrian moderate opposition is also wary of confronting the Arab Gulf states about their support for extremist groups. The rebels are still competing for those governments’ favor and they are dependent on other types of support from Arab Gulf countries. So instead, they blame others—the regimes in Tehran and Damascus, for examples—for ISIS’ rise.

“The Iraqi State of Iraq and the [Sham] received support from Iran and the Syrian intelligence,” said Hassan Hachimi, Head of Political Affairs for the United States and Canada for Syrian National Coalition, at the Brookings U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha this week.

“There are private individuals in the Gulf that do support extremist groups there,” along with other funding sources, countered Mouaz Moustafa, executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a Syrian-American organization that supports the opposition “[The extremist groups] are the most well-resourced on the ground… If the United States and the international community better resourced [moderate] battalions… then many of the people will take that option instead of the other one.”

[AndyDufresne]

it is an invasion.

btw, how much of this is Obama's fault? Remember the 'red line', remember Obama blinked...

Another "refuge" from the front lines

--Andy

[Donelladan]

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

Please, take a step back, take a breath, and try to think.
Should we have kill each and every one of the Nazi ? Because we didn't. We killed many, but not all.
That is the same with ISIS. Not everyone has equal responsibility in this army.
And btw you haven't be living in Syria have you ? So please do not be so fast to make such a judgment.
If my house was blown by one of the fighting side, my wife killed by another, and then a 3rd propose me to join to fight the others, I'd probably enlist as well. Well in the end I might be fighting in the wrong side, but they do not have all the objective and precise information we European have.

Seriously, yes ISIS acts are terrible and I hope they will be stopped, but saying each one of them should isn't a thoughtful declaration.



Won't bother reply in the topic, considering a few hundreds thousands civilians fleeing as an invasion is plainly stupid, didn't even hear the extremist of my country pulling out that argument, and they used a lot of very stupid one already.

[mrswdk]

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/ ... 2/?fref=nf

Dat trip doe!

[waauw]

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

Please, take a step back, take a breath, and try to think.
Should we have kill each and every one of the Nazi ? Because we didn't. We killed many, but not all.
That is the same with ISIS. Not everyone has equal responsibility in this army.
And btw you haven't be living in Syria have you ? So please do not be so fast to make such a judgment.
If my house was blown by one of the fighting side, my wife killed by another, and then a 3rd propose me to join to fight the others, I'd probably enlist as well. Well in the end I might be fighting in the wrong side, but they do not have all the objective and precise information we European have.

Seriously, yes ISIS acts are terrible and I hope they will be stopped, but saying each one of them should isn't a thoughtful declaration.



Won't bother reply in the topic, considering a few hundreds thousands civilians fleeing as an invasion is plainly stupid, didn't even hear the extremist of my country pulling out that argument, and they used a lot of very stupid one already.

From a firm utilitarian position, you can not admit ISIS soldiers into the country either, not as soon as you find out what they were. It's nigh impossible to gain information on Syrian or Iraqi ISIS-fighters(note: the non-syrians/iraqis are almost certainly jihadists as they came looking for the war and joined ISIS ranks not their enemies). Admitting them and letting them wander freely is hazardous and costly. For the sake of general safety you should either send them back, emprison them or kill them. The former is not a western policy, the middle still doesn't clear anything up, making the latter the safest option by elimination.

By your reasoning even bombing ISIS is a bad idea as you might kill an innocent forced member. Callous decisions are inevitable in war, and that includes the war on terrorism. The safety of the general public should have priority over all.

PS: you can not compare the nazis to ISIS. The two are very much different as were their subjects. The nazis thrived in secret operations, had sophisticated organization to track fugitives and kept many detailed documents; ISIS revels in public executions, is positioned in a chaotic warzone, and is far from as organized nor administratif as the nazis were.

[mrswdk]

European countries have no legal jurisdiction over Syria, so the legal systems in the UK/Germany/etc. have no grounds to prosecute ISIS combatants for their actions in Syria.

If you don't care nd want to lock them up in a dark cell anyway, best get on the phone to 'murica.

[mrswdk]

Foreign countries also have no business taking sides in Syria's civil war, and certainly not in violating its sovereignty by carrying out military strikes within Syrian territory, but that's another matter.

[mrswdk]

Since when did waauw become such a hard-liner anyways?

[waauw]

Foreign countries also have no business taking sides in Syria's civil war, and certainly not in violating its sovereignty by carrying out military strikes within Syrian territory, but that's another matter.

No business? The Syrian issues are being imported into europe, it is europe's business now.

[waauw]

Since when did waauw become such a hard-liner anyways?

I'd love to call it realism, but I'm guessing that would be too arrogant even for me.
But I've always been a right-wing voter, which in my country means against soft migration policies.

[mrswdk]

Foreign countries also have no business taking sides in Syria's civil war, and certainly not in violating its sovereignty by carrying out military strikes within Syrian territory, but that's another matter.

No business? The Syrian issues are being imported into europe, it is europe's business now.

So it's okay to take action in Syria as a retaliation for (hypothetical) Syrians doing naughty things in Europe?

So if your air strikes in Syria kill innocent civilians, it's equally okay for their family members to go to Europe and launch an attack on Belgium in retaliation for European attacks on Syria?

[GoranZ]

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

+1

Those that dont value life of others, doesn't deserve to live.

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

Please, take a step back, take a breath, and try to think.
Should we have kill each and every one of the Nazi ? Because we didn't. We killed many, but not all.
That is the same with ISIS. Not everyone has equal responsibility in this army.
And btw you haven't be living in Syria have you ? So please do not be so fast to make such a judgment.
If my house was blown by one of the fighting side, my wife killed by another, and then a 3rd propose me to join to fight the others, I'd probably enlist as well. Well in the end I might be fighting in the wrong side, but they do not have all the objective and precise information we European have.

Seriously, yes ISIS acts are terrible and I hope they will be stopped, but saying each one of them should isn't a thoughtful declaration.



Won't bother reply in the topic, considering a few hundreds thousands civilians fleeing as an invasion is plainly stupid, didn't even hear the extremist of my country pulling out that argument, and they used a lot of very stupid one already.

Very wrong thinking, basically you are saying "As long as ISIS dont kill someone I know they are not that bad".
Thats not the way good and bad should be determined. Closing your eyes before an obvious problem will never solve it, it will worsen it. And once Islamic terrorists start operating in Europe it will be too late.

[waauw]

Foreign countries also have no business taking sides in Syria's civil war, and certainly not in violating its sovereignty by carrying out military strikes within Syrian territory, but that's another matter.

No business? The Syrian issues are being imported into europe, it is europe's business now.

So it's okay to take action in Syria as a retaliation for (hypothetical) Syrians doing naughty things in Europe?

So if your air strikes in Syria kill innocent civilians, it's equally okay for their family members to go to Europe and launch an attack on Belgium in retaliation for European attacks on Syria?

ISIS has already proclaimed enmity towards europe. Logically, we should do all we can ot undermine and crush them.
Why show compassion on those who mean nothing but harm to you? Why not try to prevent them from training soldiers and bomb makers when they are trying to smuggle them into europe to commit acts of terrorism?

[mrswdk]

ISIS has already proclaimed enmity towards europe. Logically, we should do all we can ot undermine and crush them.
Why show compassion on those who mean nothing but harm to you? Why not try to prevent them from training soldiers and bomb makers when they are trying to smuggle them into europe to commit acts of terrorism?

They declared war on China too but you don't see China crying like a bitch about it.

I would suggest that launching illegal military air strikes in another country in order to try and wipe out an organization which has launched 0 successful attacks on European soil is a bit of a hysterical over-reaction, and one which is likely to succeed only in creating even more enmity towards Europe.

[waauw]

ISIS has already proclaimed enmity towards europe. Logically, we should do all we can ot undermine and crush them.
Why show compassion on those who mean nothing but harm to you? Why not try to prevent them from training soldiers and bomb makers when they are trying to smuggle them into europe to commit acts of terrorism?

They declared war on China too but you don't see China crying like a bitch about it.

I would suggest that launching illegal military air strikes in another country in order to try and wipe out an organization which has launched 0 successful attacks on European soil is a bit of a hysterical over-reaction, and one which is likely to succeed only in creating even more enmity towards Europe.

A. There are proximity issues. Those terrorists have a hell of an easier time getting into europe than they have walking all the way to China. To europe they form a very realistic threat, to China not so much.
B. If peace is ever won, I'm fairly certain all the refugees we took in will drastically mitigate any enmities. After all, at least europeans show a will to aid contrary to the rich arabs who sit on their asses letting them starve.

[iAmCaffeine]

Back on subject:


Seems like good part of the "refuges" are ISIS soldiers...
Europe is in serious trouble, Charlie Hebdo attack could be a joke for what await us

That was found to be bullshit. The guy was actually a rebel leader. Typical fascist/racist Facebook groups just skewing things to suit their agenda constantly.