Refugees and the European strategic error

Alik Bakhshi
Refugees and the European strategic error

Accepting refugees from Syria and Iraq, Europe is actually indulging dictator Assad and the newly formed Islamic militants of Arab States (LIH). The fact that the majority of refugees, it is not the elderly and children, young and pretty aggressive young people who could easily organize a resistance that does not suit them, not to seek a better life outside their homeland. Europe, in fact, makes the greatest strategic mistake by giving the opportunity to arrange wholesome thousands of idlers, brazenly demanding heavenly conditions and, thus, do not want to integrate with European culture and way of life. The result is that Syria and Iraq should solve the problem of Europe, risking the lives of their soldiers. Moreover, as history shows, any external invasion, especially the military, people completely alien to the mentality and culture, only exacerbates the problem.

"Arab Spring", which has finally begun, must itself, so to speak, to mature without interference, otherwise, will happen the way it did in Iraq, namely the violent coercion to democracy caused the religious wave of protest, and even fratricidal war of Sunnis with Shiites, which, in turn, has given Tehran trump obscurantists who dream to extend the Islamic revolution in all Muslim countries, like the Russian Communists in their plans to establish socialism throughout the world.

12/7/15

 

European leaders, especially Merkel and Francois Hollande can never admit their mistakes. They can not understand that in Europe penetrated a large mass of people with a different culture and a different mentality, never lived in a democracy. These people and the third generation never will join the European culture.

 

Well give it a few more generations and their culture will be European culture.

Problem solved.

 

We've sleepwalked straight into it I'm afraid, and the liberal mind-set is entirely to blame.

 

And then Lil Mike woke up.. it had all been a dream....

Some second generation Muslim youth are our conern. It maybe our own societry to blame, but integration is a liberal dream that is only dreamed by liberal fools.

 

Oh I didn't mean integration....

 

The thing is you didn't mean anything at all. You have no ideas based in reality. Just Liberal dreams.

 

It's like Roman times again, with roaming hordes, and people changing religions.

 

Oh I had a very specific vision of what I meant. Constantinople used to be the capital of a Christian Empire. It was overtaken by Muslims, the churches turned into Mosques, and became a Muslim empire that endured for centuries. The Christian past, and people were washed away as a mere artifact of history. That's what I view as the long term future of Europe. You can't fight something with nothing, and post Christian Europe has nothing. But it's not going to remain "post Christian" forever. Something (and most likely will be Islam) will come in to fill the void.

That's what I mean when I said that give it a few more generations and their culture will be European culture.

The current European culture will be replaced by a new one.

 

So to avoid your assumptions, the first - should be close to Europe for migrants. And the second - does not interfere in the Middle East. The Arabs themselves should decide their future. Europeans first came to the Middle East, remember the Crusades 1096-1291 gg. in Palestine. It is within 300 years, Europeans came to the war in the Middle East. By the way they also ravaged Constantinople - the capital of the Christian world, and then the Byzantine Empire fell under the onslaught of the Turks. The second intervention occurred during the First World War. Britain, France, Italy, Greece, the Ottoman Empire was divided among themselves. After that, any Arab states whose boundaries created by Europeans. There was Israel, which captured the whole of Palestine, while the UN resolution in Palestine was to be two states. Now the third intervention - America came to the region with a new war by attacking Iraq for the wrong reasons. Leave the Arabs alone, let them solve their own problems. But Islam is not to blame. For example, the Turks have long lived peacefully in Germany.

 

It's not about "blaming" Islam. It's simply recognizing that Islam is different. It's a non Western civilization that isn't compatible with Western civilization. I think it's pretty obvious that Europe isn't going to close itself to migrants, so no worries on that score. I'm unclear though on what the crusades have to do with migrants.

 

We'll all be wearing togas next, I can feel it in me bones!

 

I'm so sorry to see we still call them "refugees". Most of these people who're coming to Europe aren't even from a war-zone. It would be more right to call them "migrants" or "illegals"; we have to help refugees, but we don't have to accept migrants and our states should feel free to send them back to their countries without feeling guilty about that...

 

Good post, Clarisse. Watching yesterdays tv news of 'refugees' blocking the road from Calais with trees so they can climb board the lorries which have been forced to stop, and using violence toward one of the drivers? 'refugees'? I don't think so!

 

Liberal mindset? Bashar Assad is no liberal.

 

I was referring to the liberal mind-set of westerners, who have demonised Assad. For example, on last night's tv news broadcast mention was made of 'two barrel bombs' being dropped, the implication being that Assad dropped them

"At least 15 civilians have reportedly been killed by a suspected barrel bomb attack on a funeral being held in the Syrian city of Aleppo."

Note the emotive words '15 civilians' 'suspected barrel bomb attack' (not too difficult to discern barrel bombs from HE bombs, don't you agree, so why 'suspected'?) 'on a funeral' which would obviously be used as an escape scenario for Islamic State terrorists (mingling with the mourners?). Not to mention how attacks can be launched against IS without killing civilians when IS is using civilians as human shields. I could go on, but can you see how it's all being dissembled into yet another demonization of Assad? See how you're being misled at best, and fooled at worst?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-funeral-for-children-killed-in-a7213061.html

 

The West hasn't demonized Assad.. Many idiots make excuses for Assad.

 

Margot2
I really do not know how to feel about assad. And more to the point, i am not sure whether it is needful or appropriate for us to find some sorrect opinion on Assad.

Imo assad poses no immanent threat to the usa or narrowly defined interests. And, although assad may be a despicable and ruthless leader, i see no usa sponsored path which i would confidently see to be a clear improvement.

 

Other idiots can't see what he's been up against, and are stupid and gullible enough to believe all the MSM spin.

 

There is no USA sponsored path .. and we couldn't stop the revolution in Syria.

 

Thank god Putin kept you out of Syria - I shudder to think what it would be like now if he hadn't. IS would probably be well and truly settled into their shiny new Caliphate?

 

Most of the Arab world does not want a caliphate..

Putin and Turkey have some sort of plan... I think they will partition Syria, but I don't think they can fix Syria either.

 

Whatever, we lost the initiative 5 years ago when we had the opportunity to support Assad against the jihadists. This in turn would have prevented mass migration - hold that thought! Now it's anybody's guess what will happen.

 

Support Assad? He was killing Syrians.. 10,000 Syrians defected the military.

You don't have a clue what happened in Syria..

 

Now why on earth would he do that? Why would he kill his own countrymen - his taxpayers??

I'll turn the irony of that around and ask How can you say so much on this subject but know so little of it?

'10,000 defected the military'. That's a nice round figure!