Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTA_stu

The Migration Crisis

Recommended Posts

Typhus

An important point of discussion is the morality of accepting refugees into a country already rife with xenophobia and racism.

Morally speaking? Yes, I believe we should help, simply because it's the right thing to do for people in need. But considering the deep well of contempt here for all things 'foreign' and 'Muslim' - I don't think any poor, drowned Syrian child will warm our hearts. Is it truly ethical to drop the poor and needy among people who'll despise them? People who don't even want to take care of their own sick, unemployed and homeless citizens?

The issue is not just about taking in refugees, but treating them with dignity, and I don't believe we can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

I'd argue that most of your comments regarding that interview are simply confirmation bias.

"Confirmation bias"? Er, how about just observing a spade being recognised as a spade...

 

I know it's been made repeatedly clear your own bias on certain issues lies in tandem with the BBC's stance, but unlike you, and as I've already touched on before, I'm willing to observe and accept a similar, albeit not quite as harsh, level of propaganda being aimed against political figures/parties on the opposite side of the spectrum to which I sit.

 

You already have the Beeb and have strong feelings regarding their apparent liberal bias, so an otherwise unremarkable interview conducted in the same aggressive style as most interviews with politicians

Same aggressive style? I'm sorry, but if you genuinely believe the pro-EU, pro-mass immigration advocates are put under the same intense scrutiny as their opposites, then you are just another naive or deliberately blind observer who will neither acknowledge nor admit there is definitely an agenda within this organisation. The very fact they used a Guardian-affiliated organisation to select an audience for the opposition leader's debate says all about its intentions.

 

I also find you find you complaining about the behaviour of the paper press in regards to the subject quite funny given that, two or three papers aside, it's universally centre-right leaning, largely eurosceptic and generally opposed to immigration. Perhaps they're just reflecting changing views of Britons on the subject?

Well as much as the BBC have gone out of their agenda-pushing way to promote the you-know-what petition every five f*cking seconds to get the emotionally-blackmailed, brain-dead sheep to pressure the government, if you look at the comment section on their own YouTube channel, you'd see the majority commenting are opposed to this invasion. Brush off such a voice on an internet platform if you will, but your friends at the BBC applied the same 'reflection of the public' by using bloody Twitter as some credible source.

 

Haha at "No war" in Ukraine and Turkey. Good one.

And as for the other countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

They are NOT asylum seekers

By definition, yes they are.

 

They rejected asylum in Turkey.

Through which only a relatively small proportion actually travel, and which hasn't exactly been exemplary in their treatment of asylum seekers.

 

Your diagram is idiotic given it has pretty much no bearing on the reality of the routes travelled by migrants, and the rest of your post is a pathetic appeal to emotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

Turkey? You mean like this noble guy?

 

 

 

 

“I express with sorrow that Western countries do not show necessary sensitivity toward the global terrorism that burns many countries, particularly Syria and Iraq,” Erdoğan said, accusing some Western countries of “double-standards.”

“I once again condemn some countries that on the one hand are fighting against a certain terror organization while on the other hand supporting another one directly or indirectly. It should not be forgotten that terror can turn into a disaster terrorizing the entire world. I particularly invite the West to cooperate against terror with sensitivity,” he added.

 

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-harshly-slams-west-over-terror-refugee-crisis.aspx?pageID=238&nID=87937&NewsCatID=338

 

Which is strange because I though Turkey was part of 'The West". Guess not anymore.

 

But let's get down to the point. Europe, England, you're being invaded. Not by tanks and soldiers, but invaded nonetheless. This is all part of the plan. In Libya, the former rat lines smuggling people out are now in the hands of the various islamist groups. This does two things; one it provides them money, and two strains the countries in Europe with a migration crisis. Don't take my word for it, IS has published plans on just this method. Conquering Rome i believe is the title. And all this bickering back-and-forth is doing nothing but making the problem worse.

 

I see this theme popping up over-and-over again, but it bears repeating:

 

Is western civilization and culture worth saving?

 

If you can answer that, then maybe there can be some sort of progress. But silly discussions like 40% this or 60% that is the sort of divide and conquer strategy the islamists are hoping for, and some of you fall right into that trap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

Technically seen it is placed in Western Ukraine.

Exactly. Ukraine can be small in a Map, but from side to side on a car takes 16h.

 

Oh and by the way, that areas are no longer under Ukraine's control (Sadly) so the map is correct.

Edited by SouthLand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

But let's get down to the point. Europe, England, you're being invaded. Not by tanks and soldiers, but invaded nonetheless. This is all part of the plan. In Libya, the former rat lines smuggling people out are now in the hands of the various islamist groups. This does two things; one it provides them money, and two strains the countries in Europe with a migration crisis.

Sorry but this is all complete hearsay. There's no evidence that smuggling routes are becoming a viable method of infiltration for Islamists, most notably becauae they're far less efficient and cost effective than simply having domestic nationals who are already involved with Islamist movements return to their own country. The whole idea is little more than as horror story.

 

Are you unaware you that Islamic State and other Islamist groups controlling territory may want to discourage the mass exodus of citizens from their lands and that attempting to dissuade European powers from accepting refugees with tall tails of covert infiltration is potentially a pretty good way of doing so?

 

Don't you find it strange that, despite the vapid threat of this happening being banded about for years and there already being tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Europe, there have been no terrorist attacks, attempted attacks or even foiled attempts involving asylum seekers that have crossed into Europe via the smuggling routes in the two or so years that it's been going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

 

But let's get down to the point. Europe, England, you're being invaded. Not by tanks and soldiers, but invaded nonetheless. This is all part of the plan. In Libya, the former rat lines smuggling people out are now in the hands of the various islamist groups. This does two things; one it provides them money, and two strains the countries in Europe with a migration crisis.

Sorry but this is all complete hearsay. There's no evidence that smuggling routes are becoming a viable method of infiltration for Islamists, most notably becauae they're far less efficient and cost effective than simply having domestic nationals who are already involved with Islamist movements return to their own country. The whole idea is little more than as horror story.

 

Are you unaware you that Islamic State and other Islamist groups controlling territory may want to discourage the mass exodus of citizens from their lands and that attempting to dissuade European powers from accepting refugees with tall tails of covert infiltration is potentially a pretty good way of doing so?

 

Don't you find it strange that, despite the vapid threat of this happening being banded about for years and there already being tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Europe, there have been no terrorist attacks, attempted attacks or even foiled attempts involving asylum seekers that have crossed into Europe via the smuggling routes in the two or so years that it's been going on?

24013e45903f44d501d42c4b6fc18966o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

 

 

But let's get down to the point. Europe, England, you're being invaded. Not by tanks and soldiers, but invaded nonetheless. This is all part of the plan.

What plan?

 

And "invasion"? Are you Ian Stuart Donaldson or some sh*t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

I see this theme popping up over-and-over again, but it bears repeating:

 

Is western civilization and culture worth saving?

 

Stop spreading this loaded, alarmist nonsense question around as if it has any actual relevance or bearing on reality. Culture is not something that is actively saved: Western canon is the totality of cultural symbols and artifacts and traditions that have existed and continue to exist for thousands of years. More brown people in your country isn't going to make that different. More Muslims in your neighborhood doesn't make The Iliad disappear from history. Stop acting like it's an all-or-nothing, this-or-that dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

 

I see this theme popping up over-and-over again, but it bears repeating:

 

Is western civilization and culture worth saving?

Stop spreading this loaded, alarmist nonsense question around as if it has any actual relevance or bearing on reality. Culture is not something that is actively saved: Western canon is the totality of cultural symbols and artifacts and traditions that have existed and continue to exist for thousands of years. More brown people in your country isn't going to make that different. More Muslims in your neighborhood doesn't make The Iliad disappear from history. Stop acting like it's an all-or-nothing, this-or-that dichotomy.

What about the crime rate going up, problems making the police getting sent there many times a day and the best, the one I like the most:

 

Your apartment price drops everyday. Why? Beacause no one want to live with them. Some working class family bought an apartment 40 years ago in a working class neighborhood for 300,000 and now it's worth 120,000. While an apartment with the squared meters in a similar place with less immigration but working class also, has a similar price or a bit more expensive.

 

Buy hey, it doesn't matter, it's all fun in games in the Utopia many of you believe in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tyler

What about the crime rate going up, problems making the police getting sent there many times a day and the best, the one I like the most:

Your apartment price drops everyday. Why? Beacause no one want to live with them. Some working class family bought an apartment 40 years ago in a working class neighborhood for 300,000 and now it's worth 120,000. While an apartment with the squared meters in a similar place with less immigration but working class also, has a similar price or a bit more expensive.

 

Buy hey, it doesn't matter, it's all fun in games in the Utopia many of you believe in

 

 

Whatever you're trying to say here is not relevant to the idea of cultural shifts or historical accounts of change in tradition, so I don't know why you quoted me and acted like you were saying anything of value in contrast to my points, specifically. Material conditions are important but Spaghetti Cat's question was clearly an ideological concern rooted in the displacement of a perceived culture (rather the culture of western civilization as he boldly claims). My entire point was that the question was presupposed on something not based in reality, and therefore not useful for this discussion. You quoting housing figures at me and then hastily connecting that to crime rates and police has, and I really hope you understand this, absolutely no relevance to my response. It was a non-sequitur.

 

Also I said nothing indicating that of a utopia, let alone was I citing any constructive policy leading to a utopia-- I was pointing out the problems in rhetoric that are abundant in this topic as it is now. If you would like to discuss how we can build what I believe in, we can do that in other topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

 

But let's get down to the point. Europe, England, you're being invaded. Not by tanks and soldiers, but invaded nonetheless. This is all part of the plan. In Libya, the former rat lines smuggling people out are now in the hands of the various islamist groups. This does two things; one it provides them money, and two strains the countries in Europe with a migration crisis.

Sorry but this is all complete hearsay. There's no evidence that smuggling routes are becoming a viable method of infiltration for Islamists, most notably becauae they're far less efficient and cost effective than simply having domestic nationals who are already involved with Islamist movements return to their own country. The whole idea is little more than as horror story.

 

Are you unaware you that Islamic State and other Islamist groups controlling territory may want to discourage the mass exodus of citizens from their lands and that attempting to dissuade European powers from accepting refugees with tall tails of covert infiltration is potentially a pretty good way of doing so?

 

Don't you find it strange that, despite the vapid threat of this happening being banded about for years and there already being tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Europe, there have been no terrorist attacks, attempted attacks or even foiled attempts involving asylum seekers that have crossed into Europe via the smuggling routes in the two or so years that it's been going on?

24013e45903f44d501d42c4b6fc18966o.jpgThere's no evidence that the individual on the left is an Islamic State fighter, in fact he lacks their hallmark black armband and hasn't covered his face like most do when photographed. What's to stop him being a Peshmaga fighter or an Iraqi Shi'a? Or even an Iraqi soldier? The vest and trousers look to be old US early-Iraq-war kit as provided to the Peshmaga and used by Iraqi armed forces, also used by both the Shi'a militias and when they capture it IS.

 

And though the person on the right looks a little like him, it's not exactly evidence they're the same person- the right is hardly the spitting image of the left. Given there are no datum points beside the lips and nose to actually assess, given the beard, sunglasses and headscarf, any categorical claim they're the same person is likely to be pretty spurious. I suppose the scar looks similar, but the two pictures are from different angles and therefore assessing them as the same is also pretty spurious. And whose to say the image hasn't been manipulated?

 

Even if they were the same and we assume that the picture on the right shows an IS fighter, nothing there says or implies the individual on the is still allied with them. Given IS have been plagued by defections amongst people forced to fight for them, I'd argue we should be welcoming those who have intimate knowledge of the operational workings of IS as long as reasonable measures are taken to ensure they are genuine. I'd be surprised if agents of various Western foreign intelligence agencies weren't infiltrating the groups of asylum seekers on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

I never said that IS was infiltrating Europe, although that's entirely possible, I was saying that using refugees is part of their plan to overwhelm the system. For example:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-price/the-isis-strategy-to-take_b_7276446.html

 

and

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/17/italy-fears-isis-invasion-from-libya.html

 

 

It's kinda brilliant in a sadistic kinda way. Get rid of people you don't want, and at the same time tax the military and social services of European countries. Im not saying that all of these immigrants are terrorists, but your counter-terrorist programs are going to be strained as well. For a weaker group practicing asymmetric warfare, it's a smart strategy, and worst of all it's working.

 

Now if your goal is to show everyone how compassionate you are, thats all well and good. But the most compassionate thing that can happen isn't letting in thousands and thousands of asylum seekers, its solving the problem at the source. Now if I wanted to be provocative I could remind people that Libya was a mess created by those same European countries that now want to sweep aside the problem (or at least burry their heads until the storm passes) but it's not going to get us anywhere. Whats needed is resolve and determination to solve the problem. And that leads to some hard choices. Like should there be such a large welfare state and should some of that money be used for defense spending. That's not something that can be solved by Uncle Sam, you guys are going to have to figure it out. And time is running out.

 

And yes, culture and civilization are at the core of this problem. Yeah I know, it's not something that most people even like to consider. From the eyes of the islamists, Europe is week. That's militarily, but also culturally also. I would argue that this multicultural phenomenon over the past 40-50 years has in-fact been no culture. Pretty much everything nowadays involves deconstruction of some sort or another. But where has that led us?

 

There is a military component to destroying IS, and all the others, no doubt. It occurs to me though that we need to win this culturally as well. Why do you think, for example, that the IS has banned music? Or, when the Taliban was in power, banning flying kites? It's because this is the biggest threat to their power. Promoting, and importantly being proud of, that cultural element is a key part of victory over this threat. People extoll soft power, but never really explain or follow through, well there's my solution.

 

The focus on saving or not saving that cultural and civilization identity is an important mile post. If you want to save and promote that, then you'll have one motivating factor. If you want to distance yourself from that past, then you will be motivated in another way. A third way, those that want a deconstruction, needs to be alluded to. If you want some sort of communist overthrow, ok, that's your view. But if that's your viewpoint, then you will need to promote and explain this new culture. It's not a gotcha question or dividing point, it's a statement of truth.

 

It took me a while to come to these conclusions, and in some ways I'm still working on it, so I understand that others may have a hard time with that thought. It's not an easy thing to pin down, like policy or percentages, so most people will flow right past. To me it answers the question of why, which then leads to how. As long as the focus is on the how, the why is never answered. And why is the fundamental foundation in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So you think the mass exodus of people away from war zones is a deliberate ploy by Islamists to overwhelm the social infrastructure of the West? Nothing to do with the legitimate desire of people to escape genocide and simply a calculated attempt at undermining Europe...for what end exactly? It's not like we're really doing much to impede IS as a continent.

 

The rest of your post was pretty ranty and I had a great deal of trouble discerning what points you were trying to make. Do you mind clarifying them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

Refugees are an IS plan? You should stop watching fox news with a tin foil hat. Expelling the population of your medieval fascist 'state' through savagery is "a plan to tax the social services of Europe"? What kind of nonsensical right wing rubbish is that?

Furthermore, we created this problem by destabilizing Iraq. Helping the victims of the ongoing disaster caused by our crimes has nothing to do with 'compassion'. It is just one aspect of the damages that those countries who contributed, or remained silent, regarding the crime known as the invasion of Iraq, owe the Iraqi and Syrian people.

The NATO violation of the no-fly zone resolution, by helping the Libyan islamists take over the complete country and kill Ghadaffi, was also a tactical blunder. We could've tried to freeze the conflict and stabilize the situation, but in stead we helped groups with many Al-Qaeda links completely take over the country.That's a blunder both from the perspective of expanding regional influence (the policy goal), and from the perspective of human decency and morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

Very interesting discussion, and topic as a whole. Seeing that most of the discusson seems to centre on ethics and direct benefits/harm of the immigrants, I'd just like to add another perspective on the matter.

 

IS' success (and very survival) is based on winning over Sunnis across the world (see Side Note below for explanation). This is done by highlighting hypocrisy in the West's supposedly humanitarian foreign policy, and convincing Sunni Muslims that the West views them as enemies.

If the West starts turning back those mostly Sunni Arab immigrants, IS would have an ideological field day - they can easily contrast how concerned the West was with the far smaller numbers of Yazidis trapped on the mountains of North-West Iraq, and how unconcerned they are with the far greater number of Sunnis drowning in the Mediterranean.

Furthermore, many of those fleeing are Kurdish (like the eponymous Kurdi family now in the media), who are allied to the West in their fight against the IS. Allowing such people asylum will encourage others to join the West's cause in the future, as they will be guaranteed a comfortable safe haven if they lose their fight against the IS.

Therefore the West needs to show that it cares for those asylum seekers in order to undermine the IS' ideology.

 

Side Note:

Right now, I believe the West is more than capable of defeating IS via air support and ground allies. However, the focus now seems to only be preventing the IS from gaining more ground. The "dismantle and ultimate destroy" rhetoric in use since early on is clearly aimed at buying more time, and Western politicians have been clear in saying that this will be a drawn out conflict from very early on.

Winning over the people currently in IS territory, or turning them against the IS is completely unachievable at this point. The IS, thanks to Western foreign policy recently, has successfully demonstrated to the people that their interests lies with the IS' survival and success, and that the West has taken a stance that is clearly very harmful to them.

I have also noticed that Arab satallite channels (most of which state-owned) have been relentless in their anti-IS propaganda - often to ridiculous extents. Private channels which are even remotely less critical of the group where quickly shut down, journalists arrests, owners threatened etc...

 

All this leads me personally to believe that the West's strategy against the IS lies in alienating Sunnis around the world from the group and those living under it. If done successfully, this will allow a conventional military defeat of the group, and subsequent complete submission of the Sunni Arab populations living under it, to have little-to-no knock on effects elsewhere in the region or globally. This would be somewhat similar to the complete victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan's at the end of World War 2.

This is the only way I can see the West defeating the IS now.

If the West fails to alienate Sunni Muslims globally from the IS, and the fellow Sunnis living under it's rule and supporting it, then the suffering of Sunnis in Iraq and Syria during a conventional drive to dismantle the IS would create instability in the region (and perhaps globally). Sunnis would turn against their Western-allied governments for partaking in the anti-IS coalition, not allowing them to travel abroad to fight, and/or not intervening militarily against the anti-IS forces.

 

Right now, I believe the focus lies in preventing the IS gaining ground, while winning Sunnis over globally.

Anyway, that's my theory of what's happening now.

 

An important point of discussion is the morality of accepting refugees into a country already rife with xenophobia and racism.

Morally speaking? Yes, I believe we should help, simply because it's the right thing to do for people in need. But considering the deep well of contempt here for all things 'foreign' and 'Muslim' - I don't think any poor, drowned Syrian child will warm our hearts. Is it truly ethical to drop the poor and needy among people who'll despise them? People who don't even want to take care of their own sick, unemployed and homeless citizens?

The issue is not just about taking in refugees, but treating them with dignity, and I don't believe we can do that.

Interesting and thought-provoking way of looking at it mate. From the asylum-seekers' view-point, I think most consider the worst the UK and other European countries can throw at them in terms of xenophobia is still far better than what's back in the Middle-East.

I do completely agree with you that giving them asylum is the ethical thing to do, though I'm more inclined in thinking that the pragmatic geopolitical reasons explained above (rather than ethics) is the driving force behind the political decisions.

Edited by D- Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith John

Furthermore, we created this problem by destabilizing Iraq.

It really is getting tiresome how much the self-moral-serving, bleeding heart leftist brigade keep repeatedly using "we" to justify this invasion of immigrants. Just because "we" voted for our minimal choice between two populist parties to govern us, doesn't represent "we" making the decisions to bomb this country or that country- it is parliament who decide this. At the time when the ironically same bleeding hearts were pushing the government to do something about Assad, I personally was opposed to us [the UK/the West] having any military involvement in the civil unrest in Syria whatsoever. Only when the rise of Islamic extremism and the influence it had on fellow Muslims in my own country to commit the same barbarism did I support action. But now I'm effectively being told 'your rich politicians made a decision, therefore you personally bear the responsibility to open your house to pay for and feed immigrants.'

 

Bullsh*t.

 

If there's one thing so-called 'progressives' thrive on feeding off, it's the guilt trip tactic. Sorry, but unlike the typical easily emotionally-manipulated, weak-minded, celebrity-worshipping, f*cking soap-opera watching zombie, this tactic will never wash on me.

 

And of course, the images the likes of the BBC keep shoving down our throats are that of the masses of 'refugees from Syria'. Yeah, absolutely no welfare-seeking opportunists from countries thousands of miles away from Syria at all...

 

No... no agenda here whatsoever:

 

https://youtu.be/DIc_1eMCthY

 

About 90% of those getting off the train are young males. But as soon as the camera operator spots a woman with children, they're automatically zoomed on.

 

Forgetting for a moment the already blatant appeal of the pro-mass immigration spokeswoman reporter, If this isn't an appeal to emotion and a clear indication of their position, then I'm sincerely f*cked if I know what is. It's interesting that the BBC never report on or invite members of the public to speak of their objection to this invasion, but then I suspect that that has something to do with their rightfully decreasing ability of getting away with throwing out the usual buzzwords like 'racist' and 'xenophobe' to frighten people into speaking their minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

So you think the mass exodus of people away from war zones is a deliberate ploy by Islamists to overwhelm the social infrastructure of the West? Nothing to do with the legitimate desire of people to escape genocide and simply a calculated attempt at undermining Europe...for what end exactly? It's not like we're really doing much to impede IS as a continent.

 

 

Well yes, and not just the social infrastructure but the military component as well. Again, this is in the propaganda coming out of the IS. And I don't doubt for a second that there are good hearted people trying to escape a war zone. I'm even willing to say for the sake of argument, even though it may not be accurate, that there isn't any infiltration by the various islamic groups. Even still, its a serious serious problem.

 

And to what end? Take a wild guess, they want to impose their virulent version of Islam on people, all around the world. This isn't rocket science, it's the stated goal. These are depraved evil people that are doing anything to win.

 

I'll try not to derail anymore, but here's what we can agree on. The IS, these head choppers have their own 'civilization' if you even want to call it that. I think we can agree that they are the bad guys. Compare that to the side that's taking in all these refugees, the opposing civilization, the good guys. We can agree that the bad guys are bad and we oppose them. Flip the coin around, what are fighting for? Are we not fighting in defense of western civilization? If so, is it worth saving? I say yes, which governs my actions accordingly. How you answer that question is how you will act as well. It's not to put anyone in a box, but to clarify the argument. Hope that clears things up.

 

E: Agreed D-Ice, always enjoy reading your posts and the prospective it brings. :^:

Edited by Spaghetti Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well yes

Based on what evidence? I don't think we can count IS propaganda given that Islamist groups of all kinds frequently make utter sh*t up (see-AQ and chemical/biological/radiological weapons). Notwithstanding the fact I can't actually find anything at all to suggest they actually ever made the claims you allege they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

I've been asked before not to show that kind of stuff on here, and to an extent I would tend to agree. It's not a NSFW image, but I'm gonna put it into spoilers anyways...

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2015-02-24-at-8.53.39-PM.png

 

 

 

You can find some of the plans in there, but I'm not linking to any of that, so you're on your own. There was another, I believe an audio recording, from one of the key leaders expanding upon this, but I'd have to search for it myself. I don't keep this stuff bookmarked for obvious reasons. Maybe try in MEMRI, LWJ, or even Pam Geller's (yes I know...) website for more info.

 

If you're looking for a signed order from al-Bagdadi himself I'm afraid I can't help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I've been asked before not to show that kind of stuff on here, and to an extent I would tend to agree. It's not a NSFW image, but I'm gonna put it into spoilers anyways...

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2015-02-24-at-8.53.39-PM.png

 

 

 

You can find some of the plans in there, but I'm not linking to any of that, so you're on your own. There was another, I believe an audio recording, from one of the key leaders expanding upon this, but I'd have to search for it myself. I don't keep this stuff bookmarked for obvious reasons. Maybe try in MEMRI, LWJ, or even Pam Geller's (yes I know...) website for more info.

 

If you're looking for a signed order from al-Bagdadi himself I'm afraid I can't help you.

What does this prove though? The first few pages of this thread I argued about the security risks of letting in unscrutinized refuges without checking into their backgrounds/intentions. That said. I really don't know what the existence of this pamplhet serves to tell us. What I do think is that we need to be very careful who we are letting into Europe. They haven't done a good job of that so far. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/16/europe/italy-migrants-christians-thrown-overboard/)

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunrise Driver

 

Haha at "No war" in Ukraine and Turkey. Good one.

There's no war in 23 out of 25 regions of Ukraine.

 

Been said a lot in this thread and I concur that if one is running from war, destruction and genocide then his goal must be the first peaceful and stable country (usually the neighbour) - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti. If he wants to go further then he's not a refugee anymore, but an economical immigrant and should go through the usual immigration process.

 

The only ones I understand are Libyans. Tunisia and Egypt have proven not to be so stable in the recent years so many Libyans may not have other way then North.

Edited by Street Mix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

Haha at "No war" in Ukraine and Turkey. Good one.

There's no war in 23 out of 25 regions of Ukraine.

 

Been said a lot in this thread and I concur that if one is running from war, destruction and genocide then his goal must be the first peaceful and stable country (usually the neighbour) - Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Iran, Oman, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti. If he wants to go further then he's not a refugee anymore, but an economical immigrant and should go through the usual immigration process.

 

The only ones I understand are Lybians. Tunisia and Egypt have proven not to be so stable in the recent years so many Lybians may not have other way then North.

 

I would agree at first glance, but what if those countries do not take refugees nor have the economic capability to doso?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I've been asked before not to show that kind of stuff on here, and to an extent I would tend to agree. It's not a NSFW image, but I'm gonna put it into spoilers anyways...

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2015-02-24-at-8.53.39-PM.png

 

 

As far as I understand it "Black Flags from Rome" is a piece of propaganda designed to create the illusion that Islamic State is preparing to reenact the sack of Rome. It should hardly be treated as a coherent strategy; it's primary purpose is to persuade already fundamentalist Muslims in Southern Europe that they're better off with IS than their native government and thst when they are powerful enough they can return to their homelands under the black flag of Jihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acmilano

 

 

While the Europe still accept refugies Kuwait said 'no'.

Didn't they needed help back in 1991 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

While the Europe still accept refugies Kuwait said 'no'.

Didn't they needed help back in 1991 ?

Not very shocking. The Gulf and Levantine states have been completely useless in the fight against ISIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SouthLand

And as if by magic:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34176631

 

That "ISIS fighter" posted on the last page is a Free Syrian Army commander.

 

Or also known as "The guys that switched sides from "Rebels Anti-Assad" to ISIS".

 

 

 

While the Europe still accept refugies Kuwait said 'no'.

Didn't they needed help back in 1991 ?

 

Of course, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain finance all those Radical Islamists around the world. They don't want to pay the consequences that being said, you will NEVER see ISIS take over any of the mentioned countries because they don't want to disturb the Sheiks that pay them and Own golden sportscars and Football Clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

 

And as if by magic:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34176631

 

That "ISIS fighter" posted on the last page is a Free Syrian Army commander.

Or also known as "The guys that switched sides from "Rebels Anti-Assad" to ISIS".

 

 

Why are you still trying to defend the stupid caption? When did the Free Syrian Army switch to ISIS? As far as I know, the FSA is still around and controlling territory, fighting both the government and ISIS.

 

And even if what you say were true, there is no way of knowing whether this guy was ever an ISIS member. Hell, even if we are to use your flawed logic, maybe he fled the FSA because they were switching sides?

 

But regardless of that, even if what you say were true about the entire picture and caption, what's the point? One guy who has a questionable backstory sneaked into Europe? Yes, let's punish all of them for the few people who are abusing the system and the crisis.

 

It's the price we pay for being rich, free and alive, all at the same time. And for not doing enough to prevent the crisis in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Or also known as "The guys that switched sides from "Rebels Anti-Assad" to ISIS".

 

I suggest you stop talking about things you're clearly so utterly clueless about. It's a bit embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.