Czech Republic joins Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia on the Side of Responsible Sanity

a reply to: szino9

I do trash the warmongers (including proxy Syria), all the time. Thats a different topic.

a reply to: intrptr

My apologies about the trashing Hungary line, it was not meant for you.

That being said my question still hangs. Don't you and the others with the same opinion find it weird that rich ME countries don't want them refugees because they are mostly, not all, but mostly uneducated, undocumented and can not or will not contribute?

Yet no blame there.

Why should Christian countries in Europe called racists nazis etc, when the refugees own blood not willing to help?

Furthermore why the EU is so strong viewed about this they are ready to force above mentioned christian countries to accept a mainly unwanted quota about how many refugees they must take in?

a reply to: szino9

Seems like it was planned. A younger work force needed in some EU countries and not in those rich ME countries. Probably why the male to female/child ratio seems off.

Reminds me of something my mom told me about LA in the 70's during the problems with Iran. Immigration would raid the soccer fields on sundays and pick up anyone looking middle eastern. Didn't bother with the latinos even though it was almost certain that most were illegal.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good f#ck the EU and their shady methods to extort and blackmail countries to do there bidding. Even as a german i full respect and understand Poland,Czech Republic and Hungary's decisions. The EU has no right to force other countries to take on refugees. I stand with them.

First of all, i don´t like the EU too!
But nobody forced those not fitting to western-, middle- and south Europe countries, nations, miniature states to join the EU! Nobody forced them with a gun to join!
But they wanted, to get billions over billions for contracts they signed.

Maybe the officials of those nations couldn´t read and understand those contracts(i don´t think that they are that idiotic!) before signing them, or they never had any other plans than cherry picking!

Just taking billions over billions, for "building and defending democracy, human rights" and all that blahblahblah. Like Turkey, for example. Turkey still get´s money every day from that damned EU, for the above mentioned reasons.

But these former USSR states begged to join, they begged for entering the former US´s southern entrance, they wanted to enter the NATO on that way(dreaming of marking the "thick max", of taking revenge against Russia). They begged to get the millions, billions, "gazillions" from the EU, to build their countries, that were 50-100 years behind the rest of of Europe.

But if it comes to fullfil their part of the contracts, those countries, nations(most of them miniature states with a lot of hate against russia and the need for revenge) suddenly decide that damned EU is a dictatorship(it is in reality, but not because of the reason those former USSR states come up with!).

It´s like i bring my completely damaged car to a garage, we put a contract in place to ensure that the car get´s repaired and that i have to pay if it is fixed. Now, the car is repaired and do a test drive and then i refuse to pay and give the car back, because suddenly i decided that the car mechanic is an evil slave driver.

You cannot sign conracts just for cherry picking, it doesn´t matter if it is with the EU or whoever. It´s about saving face, self esteem, respect and sense of honour, to fullfil your own part of signed conracts! If you didn´t or weren´t able to read and understand them before, then at least you were able to take billions and billions, and didn´t grump about that fact!

Why was that EU not a dictatorship for these former USSR states when the billions came over from Brussels, as long it was without demanding something in return?
That billions that still flow, as a part of the contracts...

a reply to: DerBeobachter

1. None of the 4 countries are part of ERM2. They're considered "second class" EU members, and as a result they benefit very, very little from their expensive memberships.
2. 90% of Czech's foreign trade was conducted with EU nations prior to their 2004 accession onto the EU and those trade contracts were negotiated outside the price controls and taxes of the EU... in other words, they had a much better deal before joining the EU.
3. The costs of accession compliance plus the annual membership costs make the funding provided by the EU pretty much a wash.

Unless you are Germany or France, EU membership is a fool's game. When you apply a value to freedom and sovereignty, no amount money the EU leaves on the dresser the following morning balances it out.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The EU is the pimp not the john.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

The EU is a political and economic UNION that ensure the free movement of people, goods and services WITHIN the internal market.

There was never ever a mention of hundreds of thousands of refugees from OUTSIDE of the internal market FFS

And when member states pointed this out, some of the countries went sheriff of the town trying to tell member states how to deal with the migrant problem.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 123143

Replying twice...

Actually, I don't watch TV, and never the major networks on the net.

Yah, you just 'happen' to agree with it.

This is just plain ridiculous. People will occasionally agree.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I need to come back these statements because it demonstrates a high degree of ignorance concerning the matter:

Amazingly, nobody in a position of authority has taken the forward thinking and defensible position of making state sponsored Islam illegal, which is why we are in this situation currently.

If the west—or anybody in a position of authority—truly wanted to prevent terrorism they wouldn't keep sponsoring it—directly and indirectly. For instance—American diplomat and chronic liar Robert Ford is personally responsible for organizing Jihadist death squads—terrorist—in Syria in 2011-2012. He is one very big key architect that has caused this increase in terrorism across the globe—especially in the west.

You are an American who condones Hungary, Poland and Czech Rep violation of Geneva Convention Laws by how they are dealing with refugees and migrants due to ignorance concerning geopolitics. The west—primarily America—is responsible for the biggest refugee and migrant crisis the world has ever seen in present times.

You condone the inhumane handling of refugees and migrants out of shear ignorance. After all, you have seen more death and destruction on American soil committed by Americans—never mind the fact that American government holds the world record for killing innocent civilians across the globe— and yet have the audacity to demonstrate moral outrage by stating:

I've read on it, don't really have many issues with how Hungary handles this. It seems to be working for them as they don't have civilians laying in the streets bleeding from terror attacks...

OP, imprisoning refugees and migrants does not prevent radicalization and/or terrorist attacks. Nor does it prevent already existent terrorist cells and rogue factions from implementing their vile agendas of murdering innocent civilians in the west. For instance; one of the London Bridge attackers was Youssef Zaghba, who was an *Italian citizen* of Morrocan decent. He only became radicalized AFTER moving to Britain. Which means there is already radical ideologies floating around in the UK. Also, the other two attackers were KNOWN to UK intelligence. The Manchester bomber was born and raised in the U.K.

Instead of trying to weed out the "good" Muslims from the bad Muslims in some bizarre game of "who's got the bomb" while they cross into western borders, we should be severing any and all connections between their governments and their religion.

First, not all refugees and migrants are Muslim. You are conditioned to ignorantly believe the entire Middle East is non-secular and made up of terrorist. Your words above reflect a simplistic understanding of this issue. Again, those three nations you mention in the OP are in violation of the Geneva Convention Laws and are doing so not to protect themselves, but for xenophobic reasons.

Uh, the west also insulated itself against the only comparison between that war and the present war on terror: they made state sponsored Shinto ILLEGAL. It worked and made the world safe against the insanity of Japan believing their emperor was a deity and lining up to kill and die in the name of of their religious beliefs.

This War On Terror is NOT rooted in religious ideologies—it is rooted in political ideologies.

Speaking of *the west insulating itself* is ironic considering the dynamics at play in this present war on terror:

The west geopolitical policies over the decades that caused the destruction of the currency of life for millions of innocent civilians—such as destroying Yugoslavia and starving 500,000 Iraqi kids to death with sanctions—does not exactly keep America and the EU perfectly safe either...

"Terrorism is like a scorpion [that you keep in your pocket]; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time" ~ Bashar Al-Assad

Q: Why does the West keep this Scorpion in its pocket...?

Perhaps, Robert Ford and his ilk have the answer...

a reply to: Involutionist

I 100% support Trump's travel ban (and believe it should be tremendously expanded)... do you really think I give a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention's refugee and asylum clauses?

I've not said all of the refugees were muslims... I said thanks to Taqiyya there's no way to know who's who and I'm unwilling to play a game of refugee roulette. One mistake costs domestic lives and, being 100% honest, domestic lives matter more to me than foreign ones do. (just being honest here)

I'm no fan of Robert Ford. I disagree with his position on the US arming anyone in Syria because, with the sole exception of the Kurds, every middle east "ally" we've armed over the years has been disloyal and has bitten us in the ass as soon as their initial target was neutralized.

As I said earlier, you can't separate Islam from politics because it has become too intertwined. It is the modern equivalent of 1940s Shinto in Japan... and should be dealt with in the identical manner.

Europe seems ready for war.
- a religious war?
- war with the Anglo-Saxon nations?
- a violent split as described in this thread?

The new Euro note has some ominous symbolism added. Quite striking, actually: an ancient goddess looking from her window. it is an ancient symbol that few people are aware of nowadays. This site describes what it means:
The Woman in the Window: a hidden message on the new Euro note?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I 100% support Trump's travel ban (and believe it should be tremendously expanded)...

Cool. There was a thread I kept putting off for months about the global populations opposition to Americans entertaining the idea wanting to migrate to other nations. One in particular was Canadians on CBC forum spouting the same rhetoric towards Americans that many Americans seem to spout towards refugees. I don't agree with that kind of rhetoric, but I do find it ironic and humorous that many seem to see America with the same vitriol as *some* Americans perceive others.

...do you really think I give a rat's ass about the Geneva Convention's refugee and asylum clauses?

I don't think you "give a rat's ass" about understanding the true dynamics at play when it comes to this topic. You posses cognitive dissonance and/or wilful ignorance concerning this issue.

I've not said all of the refugees were muslims... I said thanks to Taqiyya there's no way to know who's who and I'm unwilling to play a game of refugee roulette.

Again, this is not a religious issue. This is a political issue. Your point is moot.

I'm no fan of Robert Ford. I disagree with his position on the US arming anyone in Syria because, with the sole exception of the Kurds, every middle east "ally" we've armed over the years has been disloyal and has bitten us in the ass as soon as their initial target was neutralized.

Fair enough and I agree. There is more to it than that. I might create a detailed thread in the future about Robert Ford, John McCain and the pentagon's role in facilitating terrorism.

As I said earlier, you can't separate Islam from politics because it has become too intertwined. It is the modern equivalent of 1940s Shinto in Japan... and should be dealt with in the identical manner.

That is where you are wrong. This issue is ALL political. The religious angle is a distraction that causes biased and even sometimes bigoted views.

a reply to: Involutionist

1. Fine with me. I've never expressed any opinion, positive or negative, towards foreign countries' perceptions of Americans. I'd much rather be honest and true and be hated for it than regurgitate ideologies I don't really agree with and be viewed indifferently or positively for it.

2. It isn't "cognitive dissonance" in any way.
Cognitive Dissonance: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
Show me any inconsistencies in my position. You're calling a basic disagreement between your ideology and my own an example of cognitive dissonance, what I think you mean is "dude, you disagree with me."

3. John McCain = a piece of crap. You and I will find a lot of common ground breaking bread over what a nut job, warmongering, lying, scumbag jackass John Sidney McCain is.

4. Again, we disagree entirely on this point. The religion issue is absolutely at the core of all of this. We have a religion by which the literal acceptance of their holy texts commands their people to commit acts of barbarism, murder, and evil... we can discuss whether that is the same thing the majority of modern adherents follow, but let's not be disingenuous and say that religion plays no role in these attacks and in these crimes. Hell, most of the countries that produce the terrorists are ruled domestically by religious leaders, NOT politicians. The countries like Iran with presidents and the countries like Saudi Arabia with monarchs have political leaders who kiss the religious big chief muckity muck's ring openly on all domestic issues because they're in abject fear of being beheaded by a bunch of zealots should they step on the Ayatollah or the Sheik's toes. Further, the instant the West extracts itself from one of those countries, a genocide over part of their population not following some minute detail of the Quran or Hadith immediately seems to follow. That's certainly not politics, it's THE RELIGION.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

2. It isn't "cognitive dissonance" in any way. Cognitive Dissonance: the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

You keep mistaking political ideologies with religious ideologies. Are you willing to investigate on your time this point...?

Show me any inconsistencies in my position. You're calling a basic disagreement between your ideology and my own an example of cognitive dissonance, what I think you mean is "dude, you disagree with me."

There is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Fair enough. I interpret your perspective as a demonstration of wilful ignorance instead.

...but let's not be disingenuous and say that religion plays no role in these attacks and in these crimes.

Your thread is about Poland, Hungary and Czech Rep immigration policies—not about what drives terrorism. I encourage you to look into the *ideology* driving Hungary's immigration policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism...

a reply to: Involutionist

OK, let's agree to disagree on that point. Let me ask you this, why does it matter whether Hungary's decision is based on politics or on religion? It is their nation, are they not allowed to keep their own border security and choose themselves who is and who is not allowed into their country?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, let's agree to disagree on that point.

Fair enough.

Let me ask you this, why does it matter whether Hungary's decision is based on politics or on religion?

It matters because the humanitarian angle is being ignored either way. It's not that Hungary is simply denying them refugee status. They are denying them basic human rights and living conditions. Some as young as 14 years old are being detained *indefinitely* in prison camps. Many are being treated indignantly by Hungarian officers. I have been to Hungary and Poland—they have always been a very xenophobic society...

It is their nation, are they not allowed to keep their own border security and choose themselves who is and who is not allowed into their country?

Most do not even want to stay in Hungary. They just want to pass thru. Again, there is a humanitarian angle being ignored. If they do not want them there: Why are they forcing many to stay through imprisonment? Again, why subject fellow humans to abusive behaviour if the motive is maintaining sovereignty?

I agree that they have the right to choose who they allow in or not. But we are facing a refugee crisis *caused by American imperialism* on a scale not seen before in modern times. It is greater than WWII refugee crisis.

The European Union may have to decide whether an EU civil war is worth saving a handful of good apples from an otherwise rotten bushel.

I will know ask you why you see most as bad apples?

I can easily flip this ideology onto the American people based on the issues that have plagued its society over the decades that no other developed nation has experienced at the same rate, but that would be ignorant and very unfair to do so.

a reply to: szino9

I did start to post to you bout the Saudi Iraq border and how the Sauds don't let any refugees in, even though they are in a position to help, right next door. Kind of off topic...

its a no mans land of wire, guards and gun towers. You're right, not covered in the main scream, ignored here, too.

images

originally posted by: 123143

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 123143

Replying twice...

Actually, I don't watch TV, and never the major networks on the net.

Yah, you just 'happen' to agree with it.

This is just plain ridiculous. People will occasionally agree.

So you do agree with the main scream official BS.

Edit: Thats okay, everyone is entitled to 'their' opinion about things.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
I can't stress that enough but Poland has ZERO terror attacks. Really makes you think.

Yeah cos 'thats' why Muslims attack, it's definitely NOT the FACT that the Quran demands it of them.


Poland is also not actively bombing Muslims in Iraq and Syria. Also makes you think.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

They don't want Muslims in their country, those countries are a Bulwark protecting Europe.