• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Syrian Refugee Crisis (aka: Muslim Exodus and Europe)

crowbag said:
So you're calling people from Libya, and muslims from Syria and Iraq "migrants" as opposed to "refugees"? I'm pretty sure they are leaving the region for more immediate reasons than economic reasons, George. Sure, economic reasons are part of it, but you can't really divorce economic from security concerns can you? There is no economy left in Syria (as a result of the conflict), and as such, these people have no way of earning money to feed their children.

Let me see now.....I have seen a Pakistani being interviewed in one of the Hungarian Refugee sites.  Many fleeing through Libya over the past five or more years, flooding into Italy, Malta and other Mediterranean countries in Europe are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Somalia, Cote d'Ivory, and other African nations.  We see Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and numerous other Middle Eastern nationals in the crowds of migrants.  Not to forget the numerous Afghan refugees who have made it to Europe as well. 
What is the population of Syria, and what is the number of migrants invading Europe? 
Sorry.  I do not share your views to the extent that you do.

PS:  Tonight on TV they are broadcasting an extreme race that was staged recently in no other location than Libya. 
 
If anyone is interested the below link although from 2006 gives a good insight to what has been happening in Germany with many Highly educated Germans leaving the country to find work elsewhere.

The impact of all these Refugees with little education won't help.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/bye-bye-deutschland-more-and-more-leave-germany-behind-a-446045.html
 
Attitudes are starting to harden more. When do you think the switch will be flippen on these refugees and their enablers and these ugly scenes become reality?

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/09/14/post-modern-warfare-re-revisited/?singlepage=true

Post-Modern Warfare Re-Revisited
How bad could it get in Europe? So bad that the refugees might flee back to the Middle East.
by Stephen Green

September 14, 2015 - 12:18 pm

An unidentified Sarajevo resident braves the dangers of the central Marindvor area of the besieged Bosnian capital to cut wood for fuel, July 13, 1993 in Sarajevo. Despite an agreement between the Bosnian government and Bosnian Serbs to restore water and power to Sarajevo, most residents remain skeptical as to how long this will last and some are stocking up on fuel. (AP Photo/Peter Northall)

There’s no telling just how ugly things will get in Europe before this “immigration” crisis is over. It’s safe to say though that the ugliness is just getting started. How bad could it get? So bad that the refugees might flee back to the Middle East. Let’s revisit a VodkaPundit column from January, 2005, republished here unedited and in its entirety.

We call the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” The Germans, for all their fearsome reputation, haven’t thrown a winning war since 1870. It took Italy two wars before it could beat godforsaken Ethiopia. Poland owes its national existence to the kindness of strangers negotiating around a Versailles conference table. The last time the Spanish won a war, they were fighting each other – and so ineptly that the damnable, sad affair was half-fought by foreigners.

But make no mistake: The Europeans are good at killing. Revolutionary France started the first modern revolution in warfare by inventing the mass army of conscription. A Brit, James Puckle, invented the machine gun. Put the two together, and you get the First World War – global war and “total war” being two other European gifts to the world, wrapped into one shiny little conflict.

From tanks to civilian bombing to Hitler’s ovens, Europe has given the world more ways to kill more numbers of people than probably any other continent. In fact, Europeans named Lenin and Hitler invented those human abattoirs we call “totalitarian states.”

Not that each and every one of those items is a bad thing. Were it not for the tank, Europe might still be fighting on the Western Front, nearly 91 years after the Great War started. Civilian bombing certainly shortened that war’s popular 1939 sequel. Despite some local atrocities, it’s hard to argue that European colonialism wasn’t more civil for western Africa and the Middle East than the local governments they have in those places today. And how did European nations become global empires? In no small measure because of their talents for killing.

Anyway, that’s what popped into my head after reading the most recent post here by Will Collier. After reading an article showing that the Netherlands (former owners of Indonesia, one of the world’s largest Muslim nations) could be majority-Islamic fairly shortly, Will said:


What happens 20 or 30 years from now, when demographic trends could well result in “minority-majority” (or even outright majority) status for the Islamic cohort in western Europe? If they’re faced with the options of dhimmitude or flight, where will the native Europeans flee to?

Why, here, of course.

What Will left out is the third option.

If somewhere down the road the worst should come to worst, Europeans could always stay home and fight. And don’t think they couldn’t.

Problem is, the fight wouldn’t be the pretty kind where you see a few bold arrows drawn on the map, confidently slicing through history and the enemy lines. We’re not talking Desert Storm here, which you could draw with five arrows and lasted only 96 hours. We’re not even talking about the Liberation of France in 1944, which took slightly more arrows and just six weeks. Oh, no.

We’d be talking about city fighting. But not the kind of city fighting you saw in Saving Private Ryan, where the likable, well-trained and battle-hardened soldiers could call in an air strike just when all seemed lost. Thanks to modern Europe finally putting “ain’t gonna study war no more” into nearly full effect, they hardly have any battle-hardened soldiers. They hardly have any soldiers left at all.

The city fighting we’d see in Europe would look like what we saw in Sarajevo ten years ago. You know, ragtag bands of men with no uniforms, stolen weapons, and a desire to kill anybody who looked Muslim (or on the Muslim side, European). Holland and Denmark would fare worst. They’re both tiny, both have very high (and increasing) Muslim populations, and neither country has much of a modern military tradition. In this worst-case scenario, the likelihood of ethnic mob rule a la Bosnia seems high.

Want to take the worst-case a little further? Both countries border Germany, which might feel the very legitimate need to march in to restore Ordnung. I think we all know what usually happens once the Germans start goose-stepping through their smaller neighbors.

No, the result wouldn’t be World War III (or V?). But Europe could very well become Bosnia on a continental scale, with all the devastation, mass graves, and ethnic cleansing that implies. You can bet, at best, there would be a whole lot of people put at gunpoint onto refugee boats bound for North Africa and the Levant. Assuming, of course, the Europeans win in such a scenario. If not, the poor refugees would speak languages much like our own, and be bound for our own shores – just like Will suggested.

Me, though, I’d put my money on the Europeans winning a war of mass, mechanized murder.

After all, they invented it.
 
Kind of like when the Red Cross was handing out bottles of water to refugees in Greece, who refused to accept the help due to the "Red CROSS" being on the bottle - on religious grounds. 

It's symbolic.  Their refugees, and immediately upon arrival they are demanding we accommodate them in such petty ways as ensuring the Red Cross emblem isn't visible on the bottles of water being given to them.  If that's how they act when arriving illegally on the shore, how else are they going to demand we accommodate them once they are actually given refuge?  Pathetic. 

Throwing fellow refugees off the boat because they happen to have a different faith than you??  It's because of this mindless, barbaric, medieval bull$hit that their refugees in the first place.  And why their country sucks (just being blunt). 

There was a great talk by Neil Degrasse Tyson (I'll post the link later) - talking about how modern Islam has basically been the death of moderate & intellectual thinking.  That a thousand years ago, some of the most prominent & leading edge scientists & astronomers came from the Muslim world.  Today?  None. 
 
Well.  We are seeing our own problems come to the fore now.  A

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act


Niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies unlawful, as Ottawa loses appeal

Appeal Court rules so woman has chance to take oath and vote on Oct. 19
CBC News
Posted: Sep 15, 2015 2:26 PM ET
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2015 8:32 PM ET

The federal government has lost its appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a ban on wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.

Three justices on the Federal Court of Appeal, in a ruling from the bench, said they wanted to rule now so the woman at the centre of the case could take her citizenship oath and vote in the federal election on Oct. 19.

The case started with a lawsuit from Zunera Ishaq, a devout Muslim who moved to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008 to join her husband. Ishaq agreed to remove her niqab for an official before writing and passing her citizenship test two years ago, but she objects to unveiling in public at the oath-taking ceremony.

In the Federal Court ruling, Judge Keith Boswell said the government policy, introduced in 2011, violates the Citizenship Act, which states citizenship judges must allow the greatest possible religious freedom when administering the oath.

Boswell asked how that would be possible, "if the policy requires candidates to violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion."

When Appeal Justice Mary Gleason made the ruling Tuesday, Ishaq wiped away tears, hugged her lawyer, shook hands with friends and then left the courtroom to pray.

Ishaq, who had many supporters from Mississauga, including her husband and newborn son, told reporters that voting in the coming election is "very important to me."

"Now I am going to be the Canadian citizen and I will be enjoying the full rights in Canada as well, so very lucky for me," she said outside court.

Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey argued unsuccessfully that the lower court judge made errors in his original decision to overturn the ban. But Gleason said the court saw no reason to interfere with the earlier ruling.

The ban on face coverings sparked a bitter debate in the House of Commons when it was first announced.

At the time, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his government's ban reflected the views of the "overwhelming majority" of Canadians, including moderate Muslims.

Stephen Lecce, a spokesman for the Conservative campaign, repeated that assertion Tuesday afternoon, adding that "the government is considering all legal options" after losing the appeal.

In a news release, Lecce said the Conservatives would update Canadians on their intention to introduce legislation to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies in "the days ahead."

Conservative candidate and Defence Minister Jason Kenney, who introduced the controversial policy when he was immigration minister, said he made the decision to underscore the public nature of the oath because citizenship defines who Canadians are.

"That's why we believe that everyone taking the oath of citizenship, a public act, should do so openly, on equal terms, and without covering their face," he said.

"Today's ruling not only goes against the democratic will of Canadians, but against long-held Canadian values of openness and the equality of women and men."

But Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told CBC News that for the government to pursue yet another appeal at the cost of taxpayers' dollars "would not make much sense when the ruling seems to be very, very clear and reaffirmed today."


We have been down this road before.  The Nijab is a cultural form of dress, NOT a religious costume. 

Where have all our Canadians gone?  Where are our "statesmen"?

Wilfrid Laurier - "We must insist that the immigrant that comes here is willing to become a Canadian and is willing to assimilate our ways, he should be treated on equal grounds and it would be shameful to discriminate against such a person for reasons of their beliefs or the place of birth or origin. But it is the responsibility of that person to become a Canadian in all aspects of life, nothing else but a Canadian. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says that he is a Canadian, but tries to impose his customs and habits upon us, is not a Canadian. We have room for only one flag, the Canadian flag. There is room for only two languages here, English and French. And we have room for loyalty, but only one, loyalty to the Canadian people. We won't accept anyone, I'm saying anyone, who will try to impose his religion or his customs on us." - 1907

http://canadachannel.ca/canadianbirthdays/index.php/Quotes_by_Prime_Ministers_-_Wilfrid_Laurier
 
Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark - because they don't get enough BENEFITS
Refugees from Middle Eastern countries - like war-torn Syria - are demanding they are allowed to go to Sweden or Finland because the terms of asylum are more favourable for them.

Asylum seeker Marwen el Mohammed said there are two reasons migrants do not want to go to Denmark.

Mohammed claimed the first reason is that "the salary for refugees decreased about 50 per cent from 10,000 kroner (£1,000) to about 5,000 (£500)".

The second is that Finland and its neighbouring countries allow migrants' families to join them within two or three months - but under Denmark's new laws they have to wait a year before they are able to join their loved ones.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/605252/Migrants-Denmark-Finland-Sweden-Marwen-el-Mohammed-TV2-News-Immigration-Refugee


 
Jarnhamar said:
Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark - because they don't get enough BENEFITShttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/605252/Migrants-Denmark-Finland-Sweden-Marwen-el-Mohammed-TV2-News-Immigration-Refugee

That's the problem with Europe.  So much to choose from.  These migrants are not coming from some back water shyte hole that have only huts for housing.  i suspect they were used to a standard of living.

I guess we see teh same thing in Canada.  People will migrate to wheer there are jobs and benefits.

They shouldn't, however, look a gift horse in the mouth. 
 
Remius said:
That's the problem with Europe.  So much to choose from.  These migrants are not coming from some back water shyte hole that have only huts for housing.  i suspect they were used to a standard of living.

I guess we see teh same thing in Canada.  People will migrate to wheer there are jobs and benefits.

They shouldn't, however, look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just down the coast a bit -

solidere88.jpg
36581_beirut_beirut_beach_parties.jpg

1348332739-hezbollah-demonstration-against-innocence-of-muslims-movie-in-beirut_1455487.jpg


Something for everyone.

http://ginosblog.com/2014/04/27/10-epic-before-after-war-photos-of-beirut/
 
More on the rise of natavist parties, and now support for the UK leaving the EU is close to the tipping point. (I will not call European parties "Right Wing", since by almost any practical metric they are National Socialists at best):


http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/16/chances-of-brexit-rise-as-migrant-crisis-roils-eu/

Chances of Brexit Rise as Migrant Crisis Roils EU

The migrant crisis increasingly looks like it could break the EU, with euroskepticism on the rise as the crisis continues. The biggest news: The chances of a Brexit are up, with a poll by ICM putting support for leaving the EU at 40 percent, with 43 percent in favor of staying and 17 percent undecided. The poll gives the pro-union camp an edge—unlike the Survation poll earlier this month that found a majority of respondents favored leaving—but that lead has narrowed from 11 percent to just 3 percent. The uptick in support for a Brexit comes after a change in the way the poll question was worded, but the reason for the change appears to be the migrant crisis.

And the UK isn’t the only country seeing knock-on effects from the crisis. Euroskeptics are also picking up steam in Germany. We noted in yesterday’s newsletter that support for Germany’s far-right AfD party rose to 5.5 percent in a recent poll, even as Angela Merkel’s coalition was down to 40 percent approval, a loss of 1.5 percent. But today another poll shows that AfD is tied in Saxony with the SPD, a party that belongs to Merkel’s coalition. Both are polling at 13 percent in that region.

If you haven’t read it yet,  Alina Polyakova’s latest feature for us is an excellent account of how far-right parties have benefited from the EU’s ineptitude:

And the migrant crisis convulsing Europe these days is only likely to strengthen the allure of the far-right’s pitch, even as Europe’s elites continue to remain obstinately deaf and blind to its appeal. “Our answer [to the migrant crisis] must be in line with our history and our values, in line with what Europe is about,” Europe’s Economic Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said as hundreds of thousands of refugees poured into Euope. “To be European means to care about humanity and to care about human rights. […] When the world and Europe face such a drama, the answer should never be nationalistic. Never to close borders, never to renounce our values. Never.” Alas, fervently wishing for something does not make it so. Just yesterday, Germany “temporarily” exited the Schengen zone and started requiring passport checks on its border with Austria.

The far-right is licking its chops as the EU struggles to come up with a coherent response to the refugee crisis.

Indeed.
 
<pedantic tangent>
Thucydides said:
(I will not call European parties "Right Wing", since by almost any practical metric they are National Socialists at best):
I'll bite:  How is a "National Socialist" party not "Right Wing?"  What "practical metrics" are you using?

I'm far from a sandal-wearing hippy, but my read would put parties with posters like these ....
leganordposter.jpg

"Guess who ends up last?  For rights to home, work, health ...."
x002-poster-black-sheep-Lega-Nord-Italy.jpg

"We only give residence to honest foreigners who work - secure in our own home."
041-counter-poster-white-sheep-SVP-deported.gif

minarett_verbot_plakat_svp-315x450-210x300.jpg

.... would put them well into the "social stratification," "religion" and "nationalistic" ends of the spectrum.
</pedantic tangent>
 
850px-European_Parliament_Strasbourg_seating.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliament_in_Strasbourg

Get rid of the Bureaucrats blocking the middle ground and you would find a vanishingly small distance between "Left/Nordic Green" and "Freedom and Democracy".

Having said that - Church Socialist, Russian Socialist, International Socialist, National Socialist - the only point of debate is who is in charge.  The one constant is that it is not the demos.
 
milnews.ca said:
<pedantic tangent>I'll bite:  How is a "National Socialist" party not "Right Wing?"  What "practical metrics" are you using?

The name "National Socialist" is the first give away that it is not a right wing party, Socialism is one of the basic foundational philosophies of the "Left" (Progressive, Liberal , SJW, Fascist, Communist etc.), with the emphasis on the State controlling the collective production of the State for the benefit of "the people" or a subset of the "people" (traditionally defined by social or economic class). Nativists/National Socialists simply define the "people" whom the State benefits by ethnic criterion (and by that measure, the BQ/PQ here in Canada was most definitely a National Socialist party).

The pejorative of Nazi/Fascist as being "Right Wing" is an artifact of 1930 era Soviet propaganda, which saw competing socialist movements (National Socialism and Fascism) as a potential threat to the spread of International Communism in Europe, and defined these forms of Socialism as being to the "right" of Soviet Communism. Of course in the post war world, Leftists everywhere were happy to continue using the pejorative, realizing that the "Nazi=right wing" formulation was a perfect attack vector against conservative parities and values everywhere in the West.

 
Hard choices are leading to hard borders:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/17/cascading-border-closures-rock-europe/

Cascading Border Closures Rock Europe

Europe is experiencing a series of cascading border closures, rippling outward like circuit breakers tripping during a power surge. A week ago, Denmark suspended its rail link to Germany. On Monday, Germany closed its border with Austria. Austria, Slovakia, and the Netherlands all clamped “temporary” border restrictions into place.

On Tuesday, Hungary sealed its border with Serbia; yesterday, Hungarian border guards used water cannons, tear gas, and truncheons to beat back a sea of migrants. This in turn forced more than 5,000 people to seek an alternate path through Croatia north to Slovenia and Germany. Croatian authorities indicated that while they want to help, Croatia’s capacity for handling migrant flows was limited to the thousands, not to the tens of thousands. And then Slovenian authorities today announced that they would reinforce their border with Croatia, potentially creating another dead end for the thousands of migrants massing in the Balkans.

This was inevitable when Brussels and Berlin signaled a determination to treat the immigration problem—which is a hybrid refugee crisis and migrant moment—in purely humanitarian terms. Those languishing in the south of Europe or even in refugee camps in Turkey heard the official declarations as an open-ended invitation to the generous, prosperous, new Germany; they rushed northward and overloaded the system.

European leaders had no practical plans to deal with the wave of migrants they were encouraging. While some of the border shutdowns—such as Hungary’s—were triggered by ideology, many are a matter of logistics. Germany, it turns out, has absolutely no legal immigration mechanism. It hasn’t enforced a land border since 1995. Is it any wonder it wasn’t able to process the inflow into Bavaria, despite the government’s best intentions? Now, border controls are now rippling from the desirable destinations in Europe (Germany and Scandinavia) outward to its more remote borders.

In Brussels, leaders failed to agree to a refugee-sharing quota scheme earlier this week, and may now have abandoned mandatory redistribution plans entirely. As the numbers continue to mount, absent a unified border-enforcement-cum-resettlement plan, a return to national borders may be the only way some governments can see to deal with the crisis.

And while all of these measures are technically “temporary”, it doesn’t take Nostradamus to see a world in which they might be extended indefinitely. The end of Schengen is now being openly discussed.

European leaders acted on ideology and sentiment, counting real-world planning as a sign of backward-looking hard-heartedness. The result is that well-meaning centrists have egg on their face, and, as Adam Garfinkle put it in a must-read essay on Sunday, “One fears that if reasonable people do not somehow apply a brake to this wild excess of selfless saintliness, unreasonable people eventually will.” As the European far right grows stronger, the Continent badly needs some adults who can balance do-gooder instincts with some practical sense. Will they step to the fore in time?
 
I have to give Hungary credit, and they stated it when they started putting up their walls and stopping the migration:  Once these migrants get into a nation that is part of the Schengen Area, they can move freely anywhere withing the countries of the Schengen Agreement.  Why none of the European nations came to the same conclusions, agreeing with Hungary and actually assisting them, is beyond me. 
 
Reminds me a bit of our future sovereign, Prince Charles' conversations with (then) Camilla Parker Bowles, about wishing to be her tampon  ::) because, I suppose, he's a bit above having to have paid attention to the briefing* where he was told that his mobile phone is just an unencrypted radio.

____
* I'm about 99% sure that he, like most senior officials and politicians and important public persons (in Britain and Canada, at least) were given such briefings back in the early to mid 1980s.
 
An interesting 29 minute report by a German TV network, ZDF, on immigration/refugees/migrants into Germany, present day to over twenty years ago, and reference to the Canadian system of accepting immigrants.  It talks of the affects of Islam on German culture, society and Legal System.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKoatWM
 
Sharia law vs host country law.Islam will once again rule Europe and it will be possible by the pc left.France wont fall because they are unapologetic about preserving their culture.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Sharia law vs host country law.Islam will once again rule Europe and it will be possible by the pc left.France wont fall because they are unapologetic about preserving their culture.

In my mind this thread and the one linked below are tied at the hip.  And your quoted statement is the how and why.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/113297.0.html

How ironic is it that conservatives a speaking up in defence of liberal ideals, while liberals are rolling over on their own ideals in an effort to feel good about themselves ?

Its a phenomena that I have become all to aware of as of late.
 
Back
Top