Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Where were you folks when Obama claimed a homemade video caused Benghazi? How about the terrorists attacks that Obama called work place violence? Present me with credible facts backed by objective evidence and I will acknowledge them. You fail to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Present me with credible facts backed by objective evidence and I will acknowledge them. You fail to do the same. I think he's talking about Obama not jumping to conclusions with "It is possible that this is terrorist-related, but we don't know, it's also possible that this was workplace-related" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I think he's talking about Obama not jumping to conclusions with "It is possible that this is terrorist-related, but we don't know, it's also possible that this was workplace-related" So are you saying Obama made a statement based on the facts he had available at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So are you saying Obama made a statement based on the facts he had available at the time? An alien concept to this administration, which makes statements based on facts that don't exist. In the meantime, we continue to pray for the people of bowling green and atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Rioting erupts in immigrant-dominated Swedish suburbhttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/21/rioting-erupts-in-immigrant-dominated-swedish-suburb.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Rioting erupts in immigrant-dominated Swedish suburb http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/21/rioting-erupts-in-immigrant-dominated-swedish-suburb.html Hey did you hear? New England won the superbowl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Hey did you hear? New England won the superbowl! So what is your point this is old news? It happened yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 You're just a bit late to the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So what is your point this is old news? It happened yesterday. We've already established that it happened. We've moved on to try to discuss the fact that despite this event, Swedish crime statistics have remained flat despite the influx of immigration. It's been a one-sided discussion, though, as no conservative wishes to engage me on this point. Call this a proof of concept of the thread I started about the article that explains every debate we've had on the Browns Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Where were you folks when Obama claimed a homemade video caused Benghazi? How about the terrorists attacks that Obama called work place violence? I wasn't participating in this forum back then. But during that time I criticized him as well within my inner circle of political discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 baloney. It's NOT acceptable to let immigrants/refugees/illegal sombeitches into your country if they are going to commit crimes. So what the overall crime rate doesn't change much. That's just a diversion from the subject - why let them in? Why actively let problems in when you already have problems? Population of Sweden - about 9.5 million. Violent crime went up. It's not okay for it to go up just a little bit because of the influx. Just one person hideously murdered by one criminally violent illegal/immigrant/refugee/terrorist... is one more too many - especially when they didn't have to be let into the country in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Its not a diversion of the subject when someone, apparently erroneously, claims that swedish crime stats have skyrocketed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So what the overall crime rate doesn't change much. That's just a diversion from the subject - why let them in? See this is why I don't give a flying fuck about people pretending to have 'deeply held religious beliefs' when they turn around the next minute and say shit like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Its not a diversion of the subject when someone, apparently erroneously, claims that swedish crime stats have skyrocketed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 See this is why I don't give a flying fuck about people pretending to have 'deeply held religious beliefs' when they turn around the next minute and say shit like this. Pretending is the operative word... Exodus 22:21 – Moses gives God’s law: “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Leviticus 19:33-34 and 24:22 – When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Numbers 35 and Joshua 20 – The Lord instructs Moses to give cities of refuge to the Levites so that when the Israelites must flee into Canaan they may have cities of refuge given to them. Deuteronomy 1:16 – “Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien.” Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” This is a tiny sampling of Biblical teachings that the "religious" right seems to ignore. But, then again, it's just like pointing out facts to them (as mentioned in my other thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I remember this from last month. Facebook live feed of 3 Muslims raping a woman. Mainstream news outlets glaze over the identity of the males involved, but some blogs and other biased news outlets believe them to be from Afghanistan. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/europe/sweden-uppsala-facebook-live-rape.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/europe/sweden-rape-facebook-live/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/afghan-migrants-behind-horrific-3-hour-rape-streamed-facebook-live-sweden/ https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/sweden-muslim-migrants-gang-rape-woman-broadcast-it-live-on-facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 I remember this from last month. Facebook live feed of 3 Muslims raping a woman. Mainstream news outlets glaze over the identity of the males involved, but some blogs and other biased news outlets believe them to be from Afghanistan. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/europe/sweden-uppsala-facebook-live-rape.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/europe/sweden-rape-facebook-live/ http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/afghan-migrants-behind-horrific-3-hour-rape-streamed-facebook-live-sweden/ https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/sweden-muslim-migrants-gang-rape-woman-broadcast-it-live-on-facebook So, are you claiming white people don't rape women? Because by your logic, the reason to ban an entire group of people is because of a video of a single horrible event? In that case, let's ban everyone, including whites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Pretending is the operative word... Exodus 22:21 – Moses gives God’s law: “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Leviticus 19:33-34 and 24:22 – When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Numbers 35 and Joshua 20 – The Lord instructs Moses to give cities of refuge to the Levites so that when the Israelites must flee into Canaan they may have cities of refuge given to them. Deuteronomy 1:16 – “Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien.” Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” This is a tiny sampling of Biblical teachings that the "religious" right seems to ignore. But, then again, it's just like pointing out facts to them (as mentioned in my other thread). Immigration Reform: Another Christian View Forging a just public policy is more complex than the public rhetoric. Here are some of the complexities: The United States is not analogous to ancient Israel. Biblical "sojourners" are not easily comparable to modern-era illegal immigrants. The "foreigners" in ancient Israel were non-Israelites who were permitted to pass through or reside in Israel. They were required to comply with Israel's laws and respect its customs. The oft-quoted command in Leviticus 19 that "you shall not oppress the alien" should indeed inform our attitudes. But this passage provides no clear guidance on how the United States should set limitations on immigration. It does not indicate whether 1 million "green cards" granted every year are too few, too many, or just the right number. Alongside the biblical teachings about hospitality to strangers also stand the teachings about the rule of law. The Christian point of view on immigration reform should also look at passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. They stress a clear responsibility to obey properly constituted human authorities when their demands do not violate conscience. U.S. authorities are well within their proper powers in controlling immigration. Christians on all sides acknowledge that power, but the question is how to balance justice against mercy toward those who have broken the law. It is important to distinguish the callings of church and state. The church is called by God to welcome all with the grace of Jesus Christ. It does not make distinctions according to nationality or immigration status. The state is called by God to enforce justice. It properly makes distinctions between those who obey and those who break the laws. It properly looks first to the interests of the citizens for whom God holds it responsible. There is no place for racism in the immigration debate. Our nation is not defined by the racial identity of its inhabitants. It is defined instead by a democratic experiment in self-government that we undertake together. But contrary to some rhetoric, not everyone who advocates greater immigration restriction is inherently racist. It is crucial to distinguish between types of immigrants. The U.S. immigration policy appropriately gives priority to people fleeing war or persecution. We also give preference in allowing spouses to live together, as also parents and children. It is not unreasonable or anti-family to suggest, as some have, that the priority of more extended family relationships should be lower. Cross-border migration for a better job or to better one's financial position is not a recognized international right. If the objective is to relieve global poverty, the better solution in most cases is to bring economic development to the countries of origin. Weighing the costs and benefits of immigration is complex. Immigrants often have valuable skills. Their cultures enrich our national life. The Christians among them can renew our churches with their fervent faith. At the same time, large-scale immigration imposes burdens. Taxpayers bear new expenses for education, social services, health care, and law enforcement. Low-skill American workers find their wages depressed to some extent because of competition from immigrant labor. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/julyweb-only/immigration-reform-another-christian-view.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 While apparently not your own words, at least this is sound basis for discussion. Comments interspersed below. Immigration Reform: Another Christian View Forging a just public policy is more complex than the public rhetoric. Here are some of the complexities: The United States is not analogous to ancient Israel. Biblical "sojourners" are not easily comparable to modern-era illegal immigrants. The "foreigners" in ancient Israel were non-Israelites who were permitted to pass through or reside in Israel. They were required to comply with Israel's laws and respect its customs. This implies that it is only illegal immigrants that Conservatives oppose(not true). They oppose immigration of anyone, legal or not. That's why people who had legal reason to immigrate were denied entry in Trump's Ban. The oft-quoted command in Leviticus 19 that "you shall not oppress the alien" should indeed inform our attitudes. But this passage provides no clear guidance on how the United States should set limitations on immigration. It does not indicate whether 1 million "green cards" granted every year are too few, too many, or just the right number. We aren't talking about the United States (a secular government). We are talking about Christians in the US who act contradict the teachings of the Bible and elect officials who contradict their professed values. Alongside the biblical teachings about hospitality to strangers also stand the teachings about the rule of law. The Christian point of view on immigration reform should also look at passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. They stress a clear responsibility to obey properly constituted human authorities when their demands do not violate conscience. U.S. authorities are well within their proper powers in controlling immigration. Christians on all sides acknowledge that power, but the question is how to balance justice against mercy toward those who have broken the law. No dispute here. "Ban all of X people" is not a balancing act, however. Neither is apriori assuming that immigrant=law-breaker, which is what the right is all too often doing. It is important to distinguish the callings of church and state. The church is called by God to welcome all with the grace of Jesus Christ. It does not make distinctions according to nationality or immigration status. The state is called by God to enforce justice. It properly makes distinctions between those who obey and those who break the laws. It properly looks first to the interests of the citizens for whom God holds it responsible. Indeed, no argument against prosecuting those who break the law. The argument is against prosecuting those who haven't broken any laws. There is no place for racism in the immigration debate. Our nation is not defined by the racial identity of its inhabitants. It is defined instead by a democratic experiment in self-government that we undertake together. But contrary to some rhetoric, not everyone who advocates greater immigration restriction is inherently racist. Agree, they are only bigoted when they base increased restriction on someone's race, religion, or nationality. It is crucial to distinguish between types of immigrants. The U.S. immigration policy appropriately gives priority to people fleeing war or persecution. We also give preference in allowing spouses to live together, as also parents and children. It is not unreasonable or anti-family to suggest, as some have, that the priority of more extended family relationships should be lower. Agreed. Trump's Ban, however, led to the separation of immediate families and even the deaths of people who had a right to be in the USA and yet were denied entry, and by extension, medical treatment they needed. It should also be obvious that Syrian refugees are people fleeing war and persecution. Cross-border migration for a better job or to better one's financial position is not a recognized international right. If the objective is to relieve global poverty, the better solution in most cases is to bring economic development to the countries of origin. Agreed. Weighing the costs and benefits of immigration is complex. Immigrants often have valuable skills. Their cultures enrich our national life. The Christians among them can renew our churches with their fervent faith. At the same time, large-scale immigration imposes burdens. Taxpayers bear new expenses for education, social services, health care, and law enforcement. Low-skill American workers find their wages depressed to some extent because of competition from immigrant labor. This is nonsense. It implies immigrants don't pay taxes, contribute to the society, that they disproportinately rely on social services and healthcare, and commit more crime than the rest of the population. Immigrants certainly pay taxes, and pay the government the cost of immigration fees on top of that. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/julyweb-only/immigration-reform-another-christian-view.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So, are you claiming white people don't rape women? Because by your logic, the reason to ban an entire group of people is because of a video of a single horrible event? In that case, let's ban everyone, including whites! White christians would never fo something like that. Only brown people rape women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Immigration Reform: Another Christian View Forging a just public policy is more complex than the public rhetoric. Here are some of the complexities: The United States is not analogous to ancient Israel. Biblical "sojourners" are not easily comparable to modern-era illegal immigrants. The "foreigners" in ancient Israel were non-Israelites who were permitted to pass through or reside in Israel. They were required to comply with Israel's laws and respect its customs. This implies that it is only illegal immigrants that Conservatives oppose(not true). They (some) oppose immigration of anyone, legal or not. That's why people who had legal reason to immigrate were denied entry in Trump's Ban. The oft-quoted command in Leviticus 19 that "you shall not oppress the alien" should indeed inform our attitudes. But this passage provides no clear guidance on how the United States should set limitations on immigration. It does not indicate whether 1 million "green cards" granted every year are too few, too many, or just the right number. We aren't talking about the United States (a secular government). We are talking about Christians in the US who act contradict the teachings of the Bible and elect officials who contradict their professed values. (as much as I like some Christian ministers they just were never on the ballot and you vote for the choices presented with many times being the choice of the lesser of two evils) Alongside the biblical teachings about hospitality to strangers also stand the teachings about the rule of law. The Christian point of view on immigration reform should also look at passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. They stress a clear responsibility to obey properly constituted human authorities when their demands do not violate conscience. U.S. authorities are well within their proper powers in controlling immigration. Christians on all sides acknowledge that power, but the question is how to balance justice against mercy toward those who have broken the law. No dispute here. "Ban all of X people" is not a balancing act, however. Neither is apriori assuming that immigrant=law-breaker, which is what the right is all too often doing. (By definition coming into our country illegally is being a law breaker. I am not against on a case by case basis making provisions for many who have come here illegally but they really need to go to the end of the line as they have leap frogged over those who are obeying the law and trying to immigrate here legally. Trump appears to be going after illegal immigrants who have committed felonies which I would think most would support) It is important to distinguish the callings of church and state. The church is called by God to welcome all with the grace of Jesus Christ. It does not make distinctions according to nationality or immigration status. The state is called by God to enforce justice. It properly makes distinctions between those who obey and those who break the laws. It properly looks first to the interests of the citizens for whom God holds it responsible. Indeed, no argument against prosecuting those who break the law. The argument is against prosecuting those who haven't broken any laws. There is no place for racism in the immigration debate. Our nation is not defined by the racial identity of its inhabitants. It is defined instead by a democratic experiment in self-government that we undertake together. But contrary to some rhetoric, not everyone who advocates greater immigration restriction is inherently racist. Agree, they are only bigoted when they base increased restriction on someone's race, religion, or nationality. It is crucial to distinguish between types of immigrants. The U.S. immigration policy appropriately gives priority to people fleeing war or persecution. We also give preference in allowing spouses to live together, as also parents and children. It is not unreasonable or anti-family to suggest, as some have, that the priority of more extended family relationships should be lower. Agreed. Trump's Ban, however, led to the separation of immediate families and even the deaths of people who had a right to be in the USA and yet were denied entry, and by extension, medical treatment they needed. It should also be obvious that Syrian refugees are people fleeing war and persecution. Cross-border migration for a better job or to better one's financial position is not a recognized international right. If the objective is to relieve global poverty, the better solution in most cases is to bring economic development to the countries of origin. Agreed. Weighing the costs and benefits of immigration is complex. Immigrants often have valuable skills. Their cultures enrich our national life. The Christians among them can renew our churches with their fervent faith. At the same time, large-scale immigration imposes burdens. Taxpayers bear new expenses for education, social services, health care, and law enforcement. Low-skill American workers find their wages depressed to some extent because of competition from immigrant labor. This is nonsense. It implies immigrants don't pay taxes, contribute to the society, that they disproportinately rely on social services and healthcare, and commit more crime than the rest of the population. Immigrants certainly pay taxes, and pay the government the cost of immigration fees on top of that. (Actually they should not be any committing any crimes because they should not be here in the first place. they came over the border illegally. As for the costs of illegal immigration: Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plentyhttp://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-illegal-aliens-cost-the-u-s-plenty/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So OBF you only oppose illegal immigration? Do you support expanding that definition to include people who seek asylum from war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So OBF you only oppose illegal immigration? Do you support expanding that definition to include people who seek asylum from war? Ok I'll bite here but how come I feel like I am handing you a shotgun and even taking the safety off before giving it to you? In the case of Syria I thought setting up safe zones was the better option. Then there is a fairness issue with those we allow in. I never understood the fairness of the tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees we brought here and we had less than one percent who were Christian. Christian persecution is well documented in the area so who gets preference and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 So, are you claiming white people don't rape women? Because by your logic, the reason to ban an entire group of people is because of a video of a single horrible event? In that case, let's ban everyone, including whites! The hell? What.. All I'm trying to show is what possibly Trump might have been talking about and tried to provide some news sources. How you have come to this irrational conclusion based on what I provided is ridiculous at it's best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 See this is why I don't give a flying fuck about people pretending to have 'deeply held religious beliefs' when they turn around the next minute and say shit like this. You don't have religious beliefs, so why feign indignance? You took one sentence and get PIDT out of it. The point was that the overall crime rate - is not the point, it is that some illegals/immigrants/refugees DO NOT HAVE TO BE ADMITTED TO YOUR COUNTRY... IF THEY ARE A THREAT, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT ALL OF THEM TO COME HERE. If you libs favor mass immigration, even illegally - every single time an illegal/immigrant/refugee rapes/murders/tortures/etc etc etc..... it's on your head. Don't let the bad ones in - which takes vetting. Sure, you want the dependent welfare votes. But at what cost? Stop the bad ones from coming here. NOW, STFU and stop trying to have indignance where there was none to be had. So, ridicule my faith because we disagree about your pansy idea that we should have open borders? And, btw, I have made it quite clear I have no religious held beliefs. I have a disdain for religion. I've said it many times over the years - my Christian spirituality is not based on going to church, works, what other people say and do....etc etc etc, which is religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 COatse aint religious now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Ok I'll bite here but how come I feel like I am handing you a shotgun and even taking the safety off before giving it to you? In the case of Syria I thought setting up safe zones was the better option. Then there is a fairness issue with those we allow in. I never understood the fairness of the tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees we brought here and we had less than one percent who were Christian. Christian persecution is well documented in the area so who gets preference and why? LOL, don't worry, I have no desire to shoot you with the proverbial shotgun. I just wanted to understand your position more clearly. I don't hate the idea of safe zones in theory, but that's a slippery slope that could get us engaged militarily in the conflict in Syria. All it takes is for someone to shoot down a US plane patrolling over said safe zone. Now, regarding fairness. What would be unfair is to accept one refugee over another based on religion. There are two reasons why you do see more Muslim refugees. The first is obvious, Syria is over 90% Muslim. Now, you might ask, why, if 10% of Syria is Christian, why isn't this reflected in the refugee population. First, the entity in Syria that has the most military power, and therefore the most destructive power, and therefore most likely to create refugees out of people is the Syrian government itself. The Syrian government is a coalition of minority populations headed by the Alawite Muslims. The Alawaites have historically been supported by the minority Christians in Syria, most notably the Malkite Christians. Thus, they aren't targeted by the Syrian government, and in fact, are recruited to join the Syrian military. So, the reason you see fewer Christian refugees proportionally is because there ARE fewer Christian refugees proportionally. No, I'm not saying that there are no Christian refugees. I'm saying that the people with the most power in Syria happen to be allies of the Christians in Syria. Directed by Obama A long-serving Pennsylvania Democrat has joined Republican colleagues to ask Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to overturn the "indefensible" decision by the military to designate the Fort Hood massacre "workplace violence" rather than terrorism. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/05/dem-blames-political-correctness-for-fort-hood-massacre-controversy/ Susan Rice went out and lied for Obama and was duly rewarded when Obama made her his National Security Adviser. The same exact position that General Flynn had to step down from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6K0Wl1MT6U Yeah, I agree it's weird. I mean I know the guy had mental problems but IMO all terrorists have mental problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 Osiris just taught you ngrs something about syrian internal politics.....hope u were paying attn but, of course, you likely were not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 21, 2017 Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 LOL, don't worry, I have no desire to shoot you with the proverbial shotgun. I just wanted to understand your position more clearly. I don't hate the idea of safe zones in theory, but that's a slippery slope that could get us engaged militarily in the conflict in Syria. All it takes is for someone to shoot down a US plane patrolling over said safe zone. Now, regarding fairness. What would be unfair is to accept one refugee over another based on religion. There are two reasons why you do see more Muslim refugees. The first is obvious, Syria is over 90% Muslim. Now, you might ask, why, if 10% of Syria is Christian, why isn't this reflected in the refugee population. First, the entity in Syria that has the most military power, and therefore the most destructive power, and therefore most likely to create refugees out of people is the Syrian government itself. The Syrian government is a coalition of minority populations headed by the Alawite Muslims. The Alawaites have historically been supported by the minority Christians in Syria, most notably the Malkite Christians. Thus, they aren't targeted by the Syrian government, and in fact, are recruited to join the Syrian military. So, the reason you see fewer Christian refugees proportionally is because there ARE fewer Christian refugees proportionally. No, I'm not saying that there are no Christian refugees. I'm saying that the people with the most power in Syria happen to be allies of the Christians in Syria. Yeah, I agree it's weird. I mean I know the guy had mental problems but IMO all terrorists have mental problems. I don't believe a word you have said. Naturally, blame it on the minority christians for the bad Syrian regime picking on the poor terrorists (I mean muslims).\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.