hey guys why doesnt Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf states take in Syrian refugees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Translation:
http://adversityflip.com/wp-content/...g1-300x199.jpg


Cake to all the conclusions you want, just let me know when you have anything new to say, Cosmored, er, m.

---

The only one who surrendered is you, on yourself and your people. I have nothing more to say to you, I wish you nothing but defeat and destruction. Hail victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Again, Meh. Maybe it will goad them into doing the right thing, which is quit relying on the US for their own security and build some militaries that can do more than nice looking parades.

Hell, our best ally in the last few years has been France.

---

I agree with most of what you said, but I find it so shocking that you are so "meh" about terrorist attacks and mass shootings. You seem like a good person but when it comes to things like terrorism & mass shootings, to just simply shrug them off seems insensitive and inhumane which is strange considering your views.

And yes, ms is a really bad human.

Fuck off short shit

I just love how self preservation is now "being a terrible person" in this bizarro world. As if you'd say the same thing If Japan said they didn't want a bunch of Koreans or Chinese. These Muslims blow stuff up and kill people but having an opinion that isn't politically correct is somehow worse. Dreaming brainwashed generation.

Tuff:danceclubShit.

Y'all should quit picking on Saudi Arabia. They care about the refugee problem. They really do.

Just today they announced that they are donating the money to build 200 mosques in Germany for the poor refugees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Good opportunity for critical thinking.

"because his father wanted new teeth"

Implied: The father wanted new teeth, so he risked the life of his children over something shallow like dentures.

First step in evaluating the video, is to ask what is the best evidence for determining why someone does something?

The best, and often only, way to determine why someone does something is first hand accounts. "I did this because X". This is why witness testimony in court is admitted. What is generally not admitted in court is someone else's speculation. "He did this because X" i.e. "hearsay"

In this case, the evidence presented is that the aunt, obviously distraught, at a press conference, starts talking about her nephew, the father of the boy in the picture.

She simply stated "he needed money for new teeth". She didn't even say that was the sole reason.

Given the torture, execution, indiscriminate bombing, and general breakdown of the country, one would be hard pressed to simply say, without talking to the man directly, what his ultimate motivation is.

It is quite possible that the man had more than one reason for fleeing with his family.

So basically, one has the word of the guy who wrote the title of a youtube video, based on testimony from a distraught, overwhelmed relative at a press conference.

I require a bit more evidence before determining why the man did it, and stating that with any degree of certainty.

That is critical thinking.

"what evidence is available, what is the best evidence, and is the conclusion supported by that evidence".

In this case, one has a modest amount of evidence, but certainly not conclusive. Unless of course you use confirmation bias.

Use that, and you can state it with some certainty, as long as you don't really care what is real or isn't real.

---

The family was living in Turkey for 3 years here is another sand n¡gger that claims he was the smuggler http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-migrant.html

You can continue to take his word for it I dont really have a problem with him, he's back in Syria where he belongs and he's responsible for the deaths of 5 dune coons.

Neocons Blame Obama for Syria

Neocons are so obsessed with their dream of Syrian “regime change” that they are castigating President Obama for not sharing their hallucination of nearly invisible “moderates” taking power when the near-certain result would be a victory for Sunni terrorists, as Jonathan Marshall explains.

Frederic Hof, who was appointed by Obama in 2012 as “special adviser for transition in Syria” with the rank of ambassador. He’s currently a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, named after a corrupt business tycoon and former Saudi adviser who became prime minister of Lebanon in the mid-1990s (and died in a still-unsolved bombing in Beirut in 2005).

http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content...200.jpg?55ac53

Hof is today busy churning out emotional articles blaming Obama for “a humanitarian abomination and policy catastrophe” in Syria. Blasting the administration for “leav[ing] millions of Syrians subject to barrel bombs, starvation sieges, mass terrorism, and collective punishment so as not to offend Iran,” he lays the horrendous Syrian refugee crisis — “pictures of dead children” and all — directly at Obama’s door.

The source of the administration’s fecklessness, he asserts, is Obama’s single-minded “courtship” of Iran to achieve a dubious nuclear deal at the expense of “fully enabling the mass homicide strategy of its Syrian client.” He adds, “Iranian policies in Syria and Iraq have made vast swaths of both countries safe for jihadis,” a remarkable conclusion that must please the Atlantic Council’s Saudi government funders.

You would never know from his writing that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the main backers of radical Islamists in Syria and indeed throughout the world. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed in a 2009 cable, “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Hof, like other neo-conservatives, insists that

“removing Assad” must be “the first step” in a fundamental reorientation of U.S. policy toward Syria. He maintains that grassroots democracy would then flourish thanks to “hundreds of local councils” and “a vast network of civil society organizations — the kinds of voluntary professional associations that undergird Western democracies.” :lol :lol

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/1...ama-for-syria/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dirk Oneanddoneski

The family was living in Turkey for 3 years here is another sand n¡gger that claims he was the smuggler http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-migrant.html

You can continue to take his word for it I dont really have a problem with him, he's back in Syria where he belongs and he's responsible for the deaths of 5 dune coons.

---

Yup. Family wasn't fleeing Syria. While still sad it's not the fleeing refugee story they tried to present to tug at your feels.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/11/refugee...-on-in-europe/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

I agree with most of what you said, but I find it so shocking that you are so "meh" about terrorist attacks and mass shootings. You seem like a good person but when it comes to things like terrorism & mass shootings, to just simply shrug them off seems insensitive and inhumane which is strange considering your views.

---

Mass shootings are, overall, horrible things.

They are also:
Less likely to kill any given person than a car crash.
Counter to the terrorists own cause in the long run.

The important part to understand is *why* terrorist attacks are bad things. They are bad, because they kill and traumatize people.

If your standard of what to be concerned about is, rightly in my opinion, things that kill people, then you have to have some perspective.

Since 9-11, almost 550,000 Americans have died in car crashes.

That is almost 200 people for every one that died on 9-11. Why are we not marching in the streets to make roads and vehicles safer?

Same thing for Europe.

There is a very long list of things that are far, far more likely to kill us, like sugary drinks, than any terrorist.

We go to wars, because we deem the loss of life that results as a cost that needs to be borne to fight some hopefully well-defined evil, i.e. for the common good. It is like all things, a cost/benefit analysis, albeit sometimes not a conscious one.

The benefits of helping people out of the kinds of misery are both moral, and on balance economic. The costs are an infinitesimally smaller risk of mortality for the 550 million people in the EU.

I would even assert that the benefit of taking in the refugees from a security standpoint makes us safer. Ultimately we are fighting the idea that the West is evil and out to get muslims. That narrative gets a lot harder to believe if the West takes in a million mostly muslim refugees.

"meh" is perhaps inaccurate. It does concern me as the loss of life anywhere does, but life is not without risks and I estimate the benefits far, far outweigh the costs, even setting aside the moral imperative, which would lead me to conclude the risk was worth it almost for that alone.

Hope that helps clarify it a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

And yes, ms is a really bad human.

---

Likely.

Even if one assumes his schtick is mostly trolling, you can't wade through that kind of bile and fucktardery and not come out psychologically tainted, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Likely.

Even if one assumes his schtick is mostly trolling, you can't wade through that kind of bile and fucktardery and not come out psychologically tainted, imo.

---

Shut up cuck