European Refugee Crisis

[wilbur]

I guess the problem with Islamic scholarship is that it is based on Medieval precedents. I'm sure the Imam was thinking of Mohammad raping his way across the middle East in 650 AD, putting the conquered menfolk to the sword and granting land and women to his own devout Islamic followers. Or something along those lines.

Opening a fast food joint or a travel agent's franchise or anything else real life Muslims actually do in the West these days likely never occurred to him. :eyebrows:

The main sponsor of this version of Islam, by way of having spent hundreds of millions of dollars setting up Madras' (religious schools) in the Muslim world is Canada's staunch ally Saudi Arabia.

Of course, Canada will never criticize Saudi Arabia, because it could jeopardize the 15 billion dollar contract for supplying them with armoured vehicles.

The medieval precedents you talk about is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, Wahabism: the practise of Islam as it was done in the 17th century. Another entity that aims to do that is ISIS. What a coincidence! Another coincidence is that funding the startup of ISIS came from Saudi Arabia. The problem for Saudi Arabia is that in the 17th century, the concept of royalty didn't exist. Instead it was a Kaliphate, that ISIS ultimately aims to impose on Saudi Arabia: the ultimate blow-back.

 

[canada-man]

An unending tide: Hungary reopens its border crossing with Serbia after sealing it for five days as an astonishing 20,000 refugees arrive in Austria in just two days

Border crossing with Serbia open almost a week after sealing it off to stop migrants entering
The reopening follows negotiations with Hungarian interior minister's Serbian counterpart
Relations complicated by Hungary's razor-wire fence along its 110-mile border with Serbia
Hungary closed its border with Serbia after some 50,000 migrants crossed through in a week


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-expected-arrive-Austria.html#ixzz3mPHeGQJ4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[wilbur]

Sure. If that "alternative" is telling their minuscule audience over and over again that Putin is the greatest leader in the history of the world and every Western leader is stupid. But after all, RT is financed by Putin and the Kremlin. So what would you expect?

Is Reuters financed by Cameron, Wilbur?

In reality, RT is the second most watched foreign news outlet in the US, after BBC. So I wouldn't call it minuscule. If that was the case, Kerry could have just ignored it, instead of lashing out against it by calling it 'propaganda bullhorn'.

So RT is part of Novosti News Service, which is Russian government. But so is BBC. BBC used to be an objective news organization, until the Gilligan affair, when this BBC reporter uncovered the scandal behind the 'sexed up' WMD dossier against Saddam, including the 'suicide' of its top WMD UK scientist over the report. The UK government then decided that the BBC should serve national interests (meaning the government in power), and replaced the complete board of directors and sacked the top news service managers.

If you watch RT at all, and my bet is that you do not, it is rather the opposite: RT makes the point that Putin is not the slime-ball represented constantly in the Western Media press.

Propaganda is in the eyes of the beholder: but you have to watch both sides to realize where it is.

BTW, constant Western MSM vilification of Putin is commonly reported in the Russian press. That results in the flag being raised up the flag pole, and is partly why Putin's popularity is sky high in Russia.

 

[mandrill]

In reality, RT is the second most watched foreign news outlet in the US, after BBC. So I wouldn't call it minuscule. If that was the case, Kerry could have just ignored it, instead of lashing out against it by calling it 'propaganda bullhorn'.

So RT is part of Novosti News Service, which is Russian government. But so is BBC. BBC used to be an objective news organization, until the Gilligan affair, when this BBC reporter uncovered the scandal behind the 'sexed up' WMD dossier against Saddam, including the 'suicide' of its top WMD UK scientist over the report. The UK government then decided that the BBC should serve national interests (meaning the government in power), and replaced the complete board of directors and sacked the top news service managers.

If you watch RT at all, and my bet is that you do not, it is rather the opposite: RT makes the point that Putin is not the slime-ball represented constantly in the Western Media press.

Propaganda is in the eyes of the beholder: but you have to watch both sides to realize where it is.

BTW, constant Western MSM vilification of Putin is commonly reported in the Russian press. That results in the flag being raised up the flag pole, and is partly why Putin's popularity is sky high in Russia.

If you check my Ukraine thread, you will see an article linked that suggests that RT continually mis states its viewership figures. So I would debate your point and your other points as well.

Russian news interests - among them RT - continually show the US as threatening Russia. The infamous allegation that the US intends to seize Siberia is perhaps the most outrageous of these. So you're putting the cart before the horse. The Western media mistrusts Putin because he campaigns to turn Russia against the West. Russians had a hate for the West long before the US decided it had issues with Putin, which happened after he invaded Ukraine.

And I would trust the BBC a hundred times before I would take RT seriously. RT's bias is obvious and has been reported by 2 or 3 journalists who have resigned because of that bias and because of interference with their work.

Now can you give me an example of pervasive bias in the day to day reporting of the BBC or an example of a journalist who resigned in disgust due to that day to day bias??

You have only to watch the reporting of the 2 news services to see that your comparison is ludicrous. The BBC is generally fair and thought-provoking. OTOH, EVERYTHING that RT reports is anti US, anti Western and most of its pieces are misleading or taken out of context. If you spend your time watching RT, no wonder you have such a screwed up view of it.

 

[mandrill]

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

@ Wilbur:

Here's the wiki article on the Gilligan Affair. It actually places the BBC in a fairly good light, doesn't it? The reality seems to be quite a bit different than what you suggested above. But then... you probably got your version of events from RT.

 

[GPIDEAL]

RT is an alternative to our mainstream media, that never seems to criticize the foreign policies of the US government, and the foreign policies of US lap dog Stephen Harper's Conservative party. In the UK, it's Reuters that never waivers from the official 'truth' of Cameron's ruling Conservative Party.

Maybe RT has its biases, but at least, the news looks different from a different perspective. It's up to the individual to make up their minds between truth, exaggeration and lies.

Hmmmm. On the other hand, you make a good point too, but that means we still have to be wary about all media sources.

(P.S. The western MSM does not counter the government on the JFK assassination even though a lot of information has been declassified since 1992 under The JFK Act, which would challenge past official enquiries).

 

[basketcase]

RT is an alternative to our mainstream media, that never seems to criticize the foreign policies of the US government, and the foreign policies of US lap dog Stephen Harper's Conservative party....

You might want to actually watch more news. Quite a huge variety of opinions on US news stories (or Canadian ones for that matter).

 

[wilbur]

If you check my Ukraine thread, you will see an article linked that suggests that RT continually mis states its viewership figures. So I would debate your point and your other points as well.

Russian news interests - among them RT - continually show the US as threatening Russia. The infamous allegation that the US intends to seize Siberia is perhaps the most outrageous of these. So you're putting the cart before the horse. The Western media mistrusts Putin because he campaigns to turn Russia against the West. Russians had a hate for the West long before the US decided it had issues with Putin, which happened after he invaded Ukraine.

And I would trust the BBC a hundred times before I would take RT seriously. RT's bias is obvious and has been reported by 2 or 3 journalists who have resigned because of that bias and because of interference with their work.

Now can you give me an example of pervasive bias in the day to day reporting of the BBC or an example of a journalist who resigned in disgust due to that day to day bias??

You have only to watch the reporting of the 2 news services to see that your comparison is ludicrous. The BBC is generally fair and thought-provoking. OTOH, EVERYTHING that RT reports is anti US, anti Western and most of its pieces are misleading or taken out of context. If you spend your time watching RT, no wonder you have such a screwed up view of it.

Why bother arguing with you? You're a rabid Russia hater. You don't even know what's on RT because watching it a few seconds would give you a conniption fit. Any argument that may come up and you either ignore it, or come up with highly partisan media source garbage that's got a hate on for Russia.

I raised one point that you conveniently ignored. If RT has such a minuscule viewership, then why did Kerry, on a national podium, call RT the 'propaganda bullhorn'? If RT had such minuscule viewership, why give it free advertising?

RT is a different viewpoint. It does not do the Atlanticist viewpoint, nor the NATO viewpoint, nor the US viewpoint: it is a Russian viewpoint. That's the point!

And don't be fooled that MSM is the true point. Like the total hankering for war in Iraq under the falsehood of WMD?

How about the MSM vilifation of Qadaffi, manufacturing consent for war for the MSM watching sheeple because Qadaffi was supposed to be a bad guy. Then the subsequent bombing of Libya.
So little coverage of the consequent failed state, with ISIS gaining control of a third of the country. Interesting no MSM coverage of that right now.

Now, we've got the idiocy that Assad must go first and everything will just settle down into a neo-liberal democracy: just like it was supposed to happen in Iraq and Libya.

3 aggressive wars by the US in the last 15 years with no UN mandate, the conduct of aggressive wars against the UN Charter. But the MSM toes the government line that it's legal under US law.

My first confirmation of MSM bias was when I met a prominent New York Times correspondant a few decades ago who, when I asked why we never hear about the other side of the story in the Palestinian problem, he replied that if he actually wrote the truth, he would be sacked the next day.

But I'll humour you anyway about the BBC, for the benefit of the greater audience:

"The real point, as I have observed here before, is that, on a whole range of issues, from the EU to climate change, the BBC is so lost in its own groupthink that it simply does not recognise just how biased it is. And the point about people who have become caught up in groupthink is that, whenever anyone dares question it, they can only respond with a flood of angry intolerance – as Mr Naughtie again so neatly demonstrated last week."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...BBC-bias-yesterday-Today-and-tomorrow....html

plus, there's tons of BBC related articles of bias and BBC bias websites if you just bother to google it. But of course, you never came across any, so they must not exist. And if you did, anything you don't agree is just be propaganda.

 

[mandrill]

Why bother arguing with you? You're a rabid Russia hater. You don't even know what's on RT because watching it a few seconds would give you a conniption fit. Any argument that may come up and you either ignore it, or come up with highly partisan media source garbage that's got a hate on for Russia.

I raised one point that you conveniently ignored. If RT has such a minuscule viewership, then why did Kerry, on a national podium, call RT the 'propaganda bullhorn'? If RT had such minuscule viewership, why give it free advertising?

RT is a different viewpoint. It does not do the Atlanticist viewpoint, nor the NATO viewpoint, nor the US viewpoint: it is a Russian viewpoint. That's the point!

And don't be fooled that MSM is the true point. Like the total hankering for war in Iraq under the falsehood of WMD?

How about the MSM vilifation of Qadaffi, manufacturing consent for war for the MSM watching sheeple because Qadaffi was supposed to be a bad guy. Then the subsequent bombing of Libya.

So little coverage of the consequent failed state, with ISIS gaining control of a third of the country. Interesting no MSM coverage of that right now.

Now, we've got the idiocy that Assad must go first and everything will just settle down into a neo-liberal democracy: just like it was supposed to happen in Iraq and Libya.

My first confirmation of MSM bias was when I met a prominent New York Times correspondant a few decades ago who, when I asked why we never hear about the other side of the story in the Palestinian problem, he replied that if he actually wrote the truth, he would be sacked the next day.

But I'll humour you anyway about the BBC, for the benefit of the greater audience:

"The real point, as I have observed here before, is that, on a whole range of issues, from the EU to climate change, the BBC is so lost in its own groupthink that it simply does not recognise just how biased it is. And the point about people who have become caught up in groupthink is that, whenever anyone dares question it, they can only respond with a flood of angry intolerance – as Mr Naughtie again so neatly demonstrated last week."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...BBC-bias-yesterday-Today-and-tomorrow....html

plus, there's tons of BBC related articles of bias and BBC bias websites if you just bother to google it. But of course, you never came across any, so they must not exist. And if you did, anything you don't agree is just be propaganda.

I'm sure that there are plenty of BBC bias websites, just like there are plenty of alien abduction websites. The fact that some highly opinionated editorialist writes in The Telegraph that the BBC is biased doesn't make it so. Do you believe everything written in every editorial? No.

The fact that you have no "hard" evidence on this point speaks for itself. Case closed.

And why bring up MSM? Why don't you stay on topic?

 

[wilbur]

You might want to actually watch more news. Quite a huge variety of opinions on US news stories (or Canadian ones for that matter).

Don't worry, I'm not stuck on one source, not by a long shot. You have to see the stuff first before calling bullshit.

People still think that US media is like what brought us the Watergate scandal. Those days are over. the 40 major news organizations that existed then have been consolidated under the ownership of 3 major corporations, plus Fox, that is owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch.

MSM is at the service of their giant corporate masters. There's a glut of US journalists, and those who are too opinionated go work in hicktowns, or go drive cabs. Corporate America finances US politicians, controls US government, and pass the message to MSM viewers who believe everything they see. The US under Eisenhower was the last true US democracy. The US military-industrial complex and the oilmen took over after that.

 

[wilbur]

I'm sure that there are plenty of BBC bias websites, just like there are plenty of alien abduction websites. The fact that some highly opinionated editorialist writes in The Telegraph that the BBC is biased doesn't make it so. Do you believe everything written in every editorial? No.

The fact that you have no "hard" evidence on this point speaks for itself. Case closed.

And why bring up MSM? Why don't you stay on topic?

How convenient. Am I supposed to write a doctoral thesis to make my point? Even that wouldn't be sufficient for you. That's because your mind's made up.

Hard evidence cannot exist for you as it would run against your mantra. And what's this crap about evidence? Do you think you're in a court of law?

This is a forum of opinon, not legalities.

 

[wilbur]

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

@ Wilbur:

Here's the wiki article on the Gilligan Affair. It actually places the BBC in a fairly good light, doesn't it? The reality seems to be quite a bit different than what you suggested above. But then... you probably got your version of events from RT.

RT didn't even exist them. You just throw shit on the wall hoping some will stick.

Greg Dyke, the BBC Director General, resigned after Gilligan affair, and BBC chairman Gavyn Davies after the Hutton Inquiry.

The Hutton inquiry was almost universally discredited as a government whitewash.

Oh! I forgot. You need proof!

 

[mandrill]

RT didn't even exist them. You just throw shit on the wall hoping some will stick.

Greg Dyke, the BBC Director General, resigned after Gilligan affair, and BBC chairman Gavyn Davies after the Hutton Inquiry.

The Hutton inquiry was almost universally discredited as a government whitewash.

Oh! I forgot. You need proof!

Never said it did. You just ranted at me that the BBC was involved in a cover-up over the Gilligan Affair. I looked it up on Wiki and called bullshit at you. Nothing to do with RT.

 

[mandrill]

How convenient. Am I supposed to write a doctoral thesis to make my point? Even that wouldn't be sufficient for you. That's because your mind's made up.

Hard evidence cannot exist for you as it would run against your mantra. And what's this crap about evidence? Do you think you're in a court of law?

This is a forum of opinion, not legalities.

And Wilbur runs for cover....


Hey Wilbur, here's another fake news story from the Kremlin disinformation boys. Tell me again how I'm a Kremlin-hater. I love hearing you rant!

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia...r-tefft-opposition-rally-ren-tv/27260885.html

 

[canada-man]

:Eek:



Hungary passes law allowing army to use stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas on migrants, as refugee crisis forces German rail operator to suspend services to and from Austria and Hungary
Hungary is desperately seeking ways to deter migrants from arriving, including broadening the military's powers
Prime Minister Viktor Orban previously described the refugees as 'a threat to Hungary and a threat to Europe'
Later today EU interior ministers will hold an emergency meeting in hope of bridging deep rifts over the crisis
Tensions are escalating - particularly between Hungary and Croatia - as European countries struggle to cope


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ee-crisis-Second-World-War.html#ixzz3mTQhyC00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[wilbur]

And Wilbur runs for cover....


Hey Wilbur, here's another fake news story from the Kremlin disinformation boys. Tell me again how I'm a Kremlin-hater. I love hearing you rant!

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia...r-tefft-opposition-rally-ren-tv/27260885.html

What a joke! Coming right from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Financed in totality by the US government in order to spread the US government line. Nothing more than a throwback to the Cold War. In fact, it was financed directly by the CIA at one time. Complete garbage. This is oagre's type of news source: US propaganda emanating from the US State Dept.

The Pot calling the Kettle black.

BTW, the alleged news source has nothing to do with RT.

 

[wilbur]

Never said it did. You just ranted at me that the BBC was involved in a cover-up over the Gilligan Affair. I looked it up on Wiki and called bullshit at you. Nothing to do with RT.

And just where did I say that the BBC was involved in a cover-up over the Gilligan Affair? Come on: give me 'hard' proof, as you demand so often of others.

You make things up.

And BTW, you seem to use Wikipedia when it suits you. That's the same place I picked RT's viewer's ratings.... but that didn't count, did it?

 

[canada-man]

http://theothermccain.com/2015/09/22/europe-imports-a-rape-culture-feminists-want-to-ignore/


Europe Imports a ‘Rape Culture’ Feminists Want to Ignore

Ask @AmandaMarcotte, @jaclynf, @JessicaValenti, @azbrodsky (or any of the other feminists who have spent the past year lecturing us about “rape culture” on American college campuses) their opinions on Islam, and their response will either be (a) silence or (b) an accusation that you’re a racist Islamophobic bigot. Feminists only care about rape as an issue to demonize so-called “privileged” males like the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia that was smeared by Rolling Stone in a journalistic hoax. So do not expect any feminists to notice this report about the Muslim “refugee” invasion of Europe:

A growing number of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted and even forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers, according to German social work organizations with first-hand knowledge of the situation. . . .
Approximately 80% of the refugees/migrants at the shelter in Munich are male . . . the price for sex with female asylum seekers is ten euros. . . .
Police in the Bavarian town of Mering, where a 16-year-old-girl was raped on September 11, have issued a warning to parents not to allow their children to go outside unaccompanied. In the Bavarian town of Pocking, administrators of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium have warned parents not to let their daughter’s wear revealing clothing in order to avoid “misunderstandings.” . . .
Conditions for women and girls at some shelters are so perilous that females are being described as “wild game” fighting off Muslim male predators. But many victims, fearing reprisals, are keeping silent, social workers say.
At the same time, growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.

The danger of “anti-immigration sentiments” is, in the moral calculus of the Left, far worse than the danger of women being brutally raped by immigrants. It was this same calculus that caused many British feminists to ignore the fact young English girls were being systematically exploited by Pakistani gangs in Rotherham. Better that teenage girls should be forced into prostitution, you see, than for feminists to admit that Muslim men were perpetrating this criminal violence. Why, such an admission might encourage “anti-immigrant sentiments”!

 

[canada-man]

EU leaders have tonight stitched up a deal to force countries to take in refugees against their will.
Eastern European countries were told they would have to welcome thousands of asylum seekers under the mandatory quota system to relocate 160,000 people from Greece and Italy after they were out-voted at a Brussels summit.
Diplomats warned the decision to over-rule the autonomy of countries on such a sensitive issue was a ‘big moment’ in the history of the union and could lead to ‘blood on the walls’.


The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary tried to block the plan but their vehement opposition was over-ridden after it was decided to use a majority vote at the meeting of interior ministers rather than consensus.
Britain is able to refuse to take part in the quota system to distribute refugees already in Europe as it has an opt-out, along with Denmark.
Slovakia immediately announced it would defy the decision. Prime Minister Robert Fico said: ‘As long as I am prime minister, mandatory quotas will not be implemented on Slovak territory.’
A diplomat from one of the countries opposed to the plan described the atmosphere around the council table as ‘terrible’, adding: ‘This is a bad day for Europe.’
Countries in favour of the quotas showed little grace after forcing them through.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ies-share-160-000-refugees.html#ixzz3mUo6OeN6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[GPIDEAL]

Don't worry, I'm not stuck on one source, not by a long shot. You have to see the stuff first before calling bullshit.

People still think that US media is like what brought us the Watergate scandal. Those days are over. the 40 major news organizations that existed then have been consolidated under the ownership of 3 major corporations, plus Fox, that is owned by Australian Rupert Murdoch.

MSM is at the service of their giant corporate masters. There's a glut of US journalists, and those who are too opinionated go work in hicktowns, or go drive cabs. Corporate America finances US politicians, controls US government, and pass the message to MSM viewers who believe everything they see. The US under Eisenhower was the last true US democracy. The US military-industrial complex and the oilmen took over after that.

Include the 1,000 days of the Kennedy Administration (or at least he tried).