Rapefugees Crisis

[subtleknifewield]

Seems like good part of the "refuges" are ISIS soldiers...

People join rebel armies for a wide variety of reasons, some good, some bad.

In a civil war a majority of military-age men will have spent some time fighting on one side or the other. I would be more suspicious of someone who stood by and did nothing while their neighbours died, than someone who took up arms.

Of course you'll find some evil among them, but you'll also find a lot of good, if you take an honest look.

Hmmm I admit I didn't saw this coming, so now ISIS are the good guys?

I didn't say that ISIS are the good guys, but just because somebody serves in an evil army doesn't make him evil. Stalin was the biggest asshole in all of history, but that doesn't mean that every one of the 12 million men who served in the Red Army was an asshole. The vast majority of them were probably nice guys who would have preferred to stay on the farm choking chickens and collecting eggs, but the draft notice came and off to the front they went.

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

Even the ones that have been pressed into service against their will? Yeah, OK. Here's a gun, you go do it.

[subtleknifewield]

lol what? Are you trying to justify being an ISIS militant?
Every single one of them needs to die, no exceptions.

Please, take a step back, take a breath, and try to think.
Should we have kill each and every one of the Nazi ? Because we didn't. We killed many, but not all.
That is the same with ISIS. Not everyone has equal responsibility in this army.
And btw you haven't be living in Syria have you ? So please do not be so fast to make such a judgment.
If my house was blown by one of the fighting side, my wife killed by another, and then a 3rd propose me to join to fight the others, I'd probably enlist as well. Well in the end I might be fighting in the wrong side, but they do not have all the objective and precise information we European have.

Seriously, yes ISIS acts are terrible and I hope they will be stopped, but saying each one of them should isn't a thoughtful declaration.



Won't bother reply in the topic, considering a few hundreds thousands civilians fleeing as an invasion is plainly stupid, didn't even hear the extremist of my country pulling out that argument, and they used a lot of very stupid one already.

From a firm utilitarian position, you can not admit ISIS soldiers into the country either, not as soon as you find out what they were. It's nigh impossible to gain information on Syrian or Iraqi ISIS-fighters(note: the non-syrians/iraqis are almost certainly jihadists as they came looking for the war and joined ISIS ranks not their enemies). Admitting them and letting them wander freely is hazardous and costly. For the sake of general safety you should either send them back, emprison them or kill them. The former is not a western policy, the middle still doesn't clear anything up, making the latter the safest option by elimination.

By your reasoning even bombing ISIS is a bad idea as you might kill an innocent forced member. Callous decisions are inevitable in war, and that includes the war on terrorism. The safety of the general public should have priority over all.

PS: you can not compare the nazis to ISIS. The two are very much different as were their subjects. The nazis thrived in secret operations, had sophisticated organization to track fugitives and kept many detailed documents; ISIS revels in public executions, is positioned in a chaotic warzone, and is far from as organized nor administratif as the nazis were.

Should we hesitate to stop them? No.

But should we execute every last one of them? Also no.

[subtleknifewield]

Don't know if you're trolling, or just being silly.

In any army, it's usually only the leaders that are evil. The vast majority of the rank-and-file are just ordinary farmers and shopkeepers who would love nothing more that to go back to their farms and their shops.

If you watched your father getting his eyes gouged out by Battista's secret police, you would run out to the hills and sign up with Castro's army. I does NOT mean that you agree with communism.

Similarly, if you watched your mother turned into a human torch by Assad's triggerhappy flamethrower tanks, you would run off to the hills and join ISIS. It does NOT mean that you agree with jihad.

Most of the participants in a rebel force are just ordinary peace-loving folks, who just can't stand by any more and watch the government killing and torturing their family, friends, and neighbours. Their leaders, of course, are evil folks. In an army, just like anything else, shit rises to the top, and the leaders will be those willing to exploit their fellow man to pursue their own agenda. If you are talking about their Central Committee or whatever they have, I would agree with you: kill them without exception. But that doesn't apply to the ordinary man on the firing line.

Except that ISIS is not the moderate rebels. Many thousands of them are foreign immigrants who came searching for jihad, and many other thousands joined up because they wanted to join the winning team, which in my opinion is equally horrifying. If you're willing to join up with extremists, you should be prepared to suffer the same fate. It's not like they didn't have a choice, because they did.

If someone aids someone else in comitting murder, but doesn't do the deed himself, he is held liable in front of court. In my opinion the same rule should be applied to any member of ISIS. If you're willing to collaborate with genocidal slave-trading jihadists, you should be held liable for that too. Choices have consequences.

But considering your opinion, I have to ask you: "Do you then condemn western governments bombing ISIS? Should we let ISIS go rampant purely because a few sheep chose to stand beside maniacs despite being non-extremists themselves? Because that's what your reasoning seems to allude to.

And many thousands more had no say in whether they wanted to join or not. Despite what you claim, not all of them actually willingly chose to join. Should the man who was conscripted be held accountable for the crimes of those that forced him into fighting?

[subtleknifewield]

I still cant believe how can a westerner cheer ISIS No matter how you look ISIS are bad, no matter how hard you try you wont find anything good in them.

Usually if the people doesn't agree with the regime they look for ways to end it, like the person bellow


Or Hitlers assassination attempt(Resistance in Germany was way closer at taking out Hitler then any ally attempt ever): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
Also Communism in Europe fall apart from the hands of its own people.

The individuals within, not in the organization. Good people can be part of bad organizations (such as members of the Moob just trying to make a living, and living by a code of honor), and bad people can be part of good organizations (ever hear of corrupt cops?). As you have pointed out...their own people brought those others down. Who is to say the same won't happen here?

Wrong, bad guys never win on a long run... Only guys that are able to bring progress and prosperity win.

Hitler was able to bring progress and economic prosperity to Germany.That does not automatically make him a good guy.

So between bad blade Assad and worst blade ISIS west is choosing the worst blade .
I'm not surprised, Russians have good horse for racing(Assad) from the start, West never had any horse in the first place but they want to win
As long as the West wants to win in Syria, the civil war will continue.
The problem is that the West doesn't want Assad to be part of the solution that will end the civil war.

Now I don't even know WHAT you are saying.

[subtleknifewield]

I say yes to thee above. So if I belong to ISIS am I guilty of a crime? If I belong to a terrorist cell am I a terrorist? If I belong to a right wing extremist group am I an extremist? If I'm a color do I belong to the spectrum of optics? If I'm human do I belong to the human race?

Warmonger you have been named, and apt a name it is.

[subtleknifewield]

Every ISIS is personally responsible, in order to be valuable ISIS member need to make war crime. Large part of ISIS army are not even Syrians.

Emphasis on the word 'valuable' here. Not every member of Isis is valued, so even by your own argument, not every one of them has committed atrocities. Would you say the ones that have been press ganged (conscripted) into service against their will deserve death too? Yes, many fighters are not from that region, but many more ARE.

When it comes to Afghanistan I can say that everything that Americans did there is justified, if it was up to me I would have wiped every Taliban town and village to the ground that contributed with men in Taliban army. With objective, Taliban movement to be "forgotten" once for all in Afghanistan. And if Pakistan doesn't do the same attack it also(regardless of its nuclear capabilities).
Most of American soldiers did what they did for revenge for America, not for Bush.

Except...how did attacking Afghanistan punish those that were responsible for 9/11? The Taliban were not the ones that attacked us, and in fact, the US is responsible for the Taliban gaining power in the first place--we supported them in their war to fight off the Soviet occupiers.

You know what is the difference between ISIS and all others, all ISIS soldiers(no exceptions) are religious soldiers that don't honor Geneva Conventions, they honor Wahhabi ideology.
Thats why they must die, all of them. From my perspective I can not be sure about a single one of them, if they even consider to honor Geneva Conventions.

Like you say, how can we know if every soldier that followed Castro supported Communism?

I turn that question back on you. How can you KNOW with 100% certainty that all ISIS soldiers, with NO exceptions, are deeply religious fundamentalists willing to do anything for that cause? The answer is...you cannot. So stop with the hypocritical arguments.

[Dukasaur]

Lebanon and Turkey are Islamic countries and are currently housing nearly 3 million Syrian refugees between them.

Lebanon is actually a Christian nation, not an Islamic one, if it has to be labeled with a religion.

Used to be. Last census was 54% Muslim, 40% Christian.

[waauw]

And many thousands more had no say in whether they wanted to join or not. Despite what you claim, not all of them actually willingly chose to join. Should the man who was conscripted be held accountable for the crimes of those that forced him into fighting?

No say? Unless you're a little kid, you always have a say.

[subtleknifewield]

Lebanon and Turkey are Islamic countries and are currently housing nearly 3 million Syrian refugees between them.

Lebanon is actually a Christian nation, not an Islamic one, if it has to be labeled with a religion.

Used to be. Last census was 54% Muslim, 40% Christian.

The cultural influence is still heavily Christian, despite their being outnumbered---at most they are equal in influence in that and political power.

So in truth, you can't define Lebanon by a single dominant religion.

[subtleknifewield]

And many thousands more had no say in whether they wanted to join or not. Despite what you claim, not all of them actually willingly chose to join. Should the man who was conscripted be held accountable for the crimes of those that forced him into fighting?

No say? Unless you're a little kid, you always have a say.

Obviously you don't understand how conscription works. And those willing to commit atrocities can always say, 'we will kill or torture your family if you do not fight for us.' Most people who value their families would be torn apart by such a choice.

Or they could make it even simpler for the cowards. 'Fight for us or we kill you.'

[Phatscotty]

Subtle has a point. But now the question is how valid a point. Are 1 in 10 conscripted? Or are 1 in 1,000? I mean to say is that an exception and if so how big.

[subtleknifewield]

Subtle has a point. But now the question is how valid a point. Are 1 in 10 conscripted? Or are 1 in 1,000? I mean to say is that an exception and if so how big.

The question is, do they all deserve to die? yes, the organization should be stopped, but does that mean every member of their army deserves to die? With the caveat that if they do all get killed, that means friends and family may want to pick up arms and avenge them, not for any cause, but simple revenge.

[waauw]

And many thousands more had no say in whether they wanted to join or not. Despite what you claim, not all of them actually willingly chose to join. Should the man who was conscripted be held accountable for the crimes of those that forced him into fighting?

No say? Unless you're a little kid, you always have a say.

Obviously you don't understand how conscription works. And those willing to commit atrocities can always say, 'we will kill or torture your family if you do not fight for us.' Most people who value their families would be torn apart by such a choice.

Or they could make it even simpler for the cowards. 'Fight for us or we kill you.'

I understand the principle of conscription fully. I just think it's not an excuse to directly assist in the genocide of tens of thousands. Those people made a choice, and need to take the negative consequences with it.

Hypothetical: If a housefather is forced to join ISIS, sneak into europe, place a bomb in a school and blow it up, killing hundreds of children; do you honestly think the housefather holds no responsability? Even if he merely wanted to save his family?

Subtle has a point. But now the question is how valid a point. Are 1 in 10 conscripted? Or are 1 in 1,000? I mean to say is that an exception and if so how big.

The question is, do they all deserve to die? yes, the organization should be stopped, but does that mean every member of their army deserves to die? With the caveat that if they do all get killed, that means friends and family may want to pick up arms and avenge them, not for any cause, but simple revenge.

You seem to ignore that you would be releasing many extremists as well. People who could go back to killing or training/recruiting others into their schemes. Releasing such people into open society is a very big hazard, especially if the answer to Phatscotty's question were to be that the great majority is extremist.

[mrswdk]

I still cant believe how can a westerner cheer ISIS No matter how you look ISIS are bad, no matter how hard you try you wont find anything good in them.

Usually if the people doesn't agree with the regime they look for ways to end it, like the person bellow
>Hitler salute picture<

Or Hitlers assassination attempt(Resistance in Germany was way closer at taking out Hitler then any ally attempt ever): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
Also Communism in Europe fall apart from the hands of its own people.

lel

Yeah, if people are unhappy with living under a brutal regime then they just rush out and start mobilizing a resistance, as demonstrated by the fact that one guy at the back of a crowd once refused to do a Hitler salute.

Unless people are totally desperate, or the risks of seeking change are fairly low, nothing will happen.

[subtleknifewield]

And many thousands more had no say in whether they wanted to join or not. Despite what you claim, not all of them actually willingly chose to join. Should the man who was conscripted be held accountable for the crimes of those that forced him into fighting?

No say? Unless you're a little kid, you always have a say.

Obviously you don't understand how conscription works. And those willing to commit atrocities can always say, 'we will kill or torture your family if you do not fight for us.' Most people who value their families would be torn apart by such a choice.

Or they could make it even simpler for the cowards. 'Fight for us or we kill you.'

I understand the principle of conscription fully. I just think it's not an excuse to directly assist in the genocide of tens of thousands. Those people made a choice, and need to take the negative consequences with it.

Hypothetical: If a housefather is forced to join ISIS, sneak into europe, place a bomb in a school and blow it up, killing hundreds of children; do you honestly think the housefather holds no responsability? Even if he merely wanted to save his family?

In that hypothetical, yuo really think they are going to trust a forced conscript with a mission like that?

The conscription like that is like being forced to choose between cutting off your own head, or cutting out your heart.

Subtle has a point. But now the question is how valid a point. Are 1 in 10 conscripted? Or are 1 in 1,000? I mean to say is that an exception and if so how big.

The question is, do they all deserve to die? yes, the organization should be stopped, but does that mean every member of their army deserves to die? With the caveat that if they do all get killed, that means friends and family may want to pick up arms and avenge them, not for any cause, but simple revenge.

You seem to ignore that you would be releasing many extremists as well. People who could go back to killing or training/recruiting others into their schemes. Releasing such people into open society is a very big hazard, especially if the answer to Phatscotty's question were to be that the great majority is extremist.

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

[waauw]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

[subtleknifewield]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

Yeah, and? My argument wasn't about letting them in or not, it was about killing them all or not. This is a side issue to what I am discussing. I'll let individual nations sort out their own policies when it comes to handling refugees.

In short, I never argued either for or against letting refugees in, I only argued against killing all ISIS members of ISIS whether they joined out of belief or fear.

[waauw]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

Yeah, and? My argument wasn't about letting them in or not, it was about killing them all or not. This is a side issue to what I am discussing. I'll let individual nations sort out their own policies when it comes to handling refugees.

In short, I never argued either for or against letting refugees in, I only argued against killing all ISIS members of ISIS whether they joined out of belief or fear.

The two issues are related. Don't act as if they aren't.

[subtleknifewield]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

Yeah, and? My argument wasn't about letting them in or not, it was about killing them all or not. This is a side issue to what I am discussing. I'll let individual nations sort out their own policies when it comes to handling refugees.

In short, I never argued either for or against letting refugees in, I only argued against killing all ISIS members of ISIS whether they joined out of belief or fear.

The two issues are related. Don't act as if they aren't.

I'm not acting as if they aren't; a brainless idiot could figure out they are related. You still are trying to put words in my mouth with that argument above--I refuse to comment on whether or not to let refugees in (there is merit to either side of that argument), only killing ISIS. That is what I joined the thread to comment on, and that ONLY.

ISIS can be killed, or not, whether you let the refugees in, or deny them entrance.

[waauw]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

Yeah, and? My argument wasn't about letting them in or not, it was about killing them all or not. This is a side issue to what I am discussing. I'll let individual nations sort out their own policies when it comes to handling refugees.

In short, I never argued either for or against letting refugees in, I only argued against killing all ISIS members of ISIS whether they joined out of belief or fear.

The two issues are related. Don't act as if they aren't.

I'm not acting as if they aren't; a brainless idiot could figure out they are related. You still are trying to put words in my mouth with that argument above--I refuse to comment on whether or not to let refugees in (there is merit to either side of that argument), only killing ISIS. That is what I joined the thread to comment on, and that ONLY.

ISIS can be killed, or not, whether you let the refugees in, or deny them entrance.

Oh so it's fine to discuss what the consequences are of killing them, but it's not ok to discuss the consequences of not killing them? How convenient for you...

[subtleknifewield]

So on that principle, you think 'guilty until proven innocent. We'v all seen how that works out. Nothing we do is going to get all of them. That is a given. There will always be more extremists. But if we go total extermination...we end up creating even MORE. If nothing else, it's a matter of practicality and logic. By killing them all we just create even MORE enemies. Let's not create more than we can handle, yes? That should make sense to you if the moral argument does not.

Yes, it is about logic and practicality. There is a far bigger picture here, that you don't seem to have noticed. If you kill them, you create hatred among their people. If you let them go and mix among your own people, you create hatred inside your own population. This is an observable fact. Every muslim terrorist attack escalates the situation on the entire continent.

Killing off ISIS might create hatred in a far off land, but a reborn nationalist hatred can shake up the foundations of your own society. Better to keep the threat external, rather than internal.

Yeah, and? My argument wasn't about letting them in or not, it was about killing them all or not. This is a side issue to what I am discussing. I'll let individual nations sort out their own policies when it comes to handling refugees.

In short, I never argued either for or against letting refugees in, I only argued against killing all ISIS members of ISIS whether they joined out of belief or fear.

The two issues are related. Don't act as if they aren't.

I'm not acting as if they aren't; a brainless idiot could figure out they are related. You still are trying to put words in my mouth with that argument above--I refuse to comment on whether or not to let refugees in (there is merit to either side of that argument), only killing ISIS. That is what I joined the thread to comment on, and that ONLY.

ISIS can be killed, or not, whether you let the refugees in, or deny them entrance.

Oh so it's fine to discuss what the consequences are of killing them, but it's not ok to discuss the consequences of not killing them? How convenient for you...

Again, you are putting words in my mouth, words I never said or typed. Point to where I actually said 'you should not be discussing that.' Funny, you can't, can you?

Feel free to discuss it. It is just that I alone am abstaining from that particular line of discussion.

[GoranZ]

Every ISIS is personally responsible, in order to be valuable ISIS member need to make war crime. Large part of ISIS army are not even Syrians.

Emphasis on the word 'valuable' here. Not every member of Isis is valued, so even by your own argument, not every one of them has committed atrocities. Would you say the ones that have been press ganged (conscripted) into service against their will deserve death too? Yes, many fighters are not from that region, but many more ARE.

The problem is their goal... their goal is to be valuable, and we all know what that means.

When it comes to Afghanistan I can say that everything that Americans did there is justified, if it was up to me I would have wiped every Taliban town and village to the ground that contributed with men in Taliban army. With objective, Taliban movement to be "forgotten" once for all in Afghanistan. And if Pakistan doesn't do the same attack it also(regardless of its nuclear capabilities).
Most of American soldiers did what they did for revenge for America, not for Bush.

Except...how did attacking Afghanistan punish those that were responsible for 9/11? The Taliban were not the ones that attacked us, and in fact, the US is responsible for the Taliban gaining power in the first place--we supported them in their war to fight off the Soviet occupiers.

The Taliban were not the ones that attacked US, but they were the one that were supporting(in any way) those that attack US

You know what is the difference between ISIS and all others, all ISIS soldiers(no exceptions) are religious soldiers that don't honor Geneva Conventions, they honor Wahhabi ideology.
Thats why they must die, all of them. From my perspective I can not be sure about a single one of them, if they even consider to honor Geneva Conventions.

Like you say, how can we know if every soldier that followed Castro supported Communism?

I turn that question back on you. How can you KNOW with 100% certainty that all ISIS soldiers, with NO exceptions, are deeply religious fundamentalists willing to do anything for that cause? The answer is...you cannot. So stop with the hypocritical arguments.

Castro's communist are not famous for cutting heads, or blowing up historical monuments, so there is a huge difference between a communist and jihadist. Whats more important former Communist countries(not only 1, but many) are now part of NATO. I doubt you can turn jihadist into westerner, he would rather suicide

I still cant believe how can a westerner cheer ISIS No matter how you look ISIS are bad, no matter how hard you try you wont find anything good in them.

Usually if the people doesn't agree with the regime they look for ways to end it, like the person bellow
>Hitler salute picture<

Or Hitlers assassination attempt(Resistance in Germany was way closer at taking out Hitler then any ally attempt ever): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
Also Communism in Europe fall apart from the hands of its own people.

lel

Yeah, if people are unhappy with living under a brutal regime then they just rush out and start mobilizing a resistance, as demonstrated by the fact that one guy at the back of a crowd once refused to do a Hitler salute.

Unless people are totally desperate, or the risks of seeking change are fairly low, nothing will happen.

You dont need rebellion to change a government, its enough if the efficiency of everything drops considerably.

[GoranZ]

Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia... are all closing the borders.

Hungary even totally closed the border with Serbia for the "refugees"





Seems like the new "refugee" route will go threw Croatia, but no one knows for how long.

[mrswdk]

You dont need rebellion to change a government, its enough if the efficiency of everything drops considerably.

1 - what does that mean?
2 - please give some examples of occasions where people doing whatever you are talking about has led to a regime change in a country

[GoranZ]

You dont need rebellion to change a government, its enough if the efficiency of everything drops considerably.

1 - what does that mean?
2 - please give some examples of occasions where people doing whatever you are talking about has led to a regime change in a country

Easy... Collapse of the communism, Western Roman Empire(the empire was able to defend its self against the German invaders but the population was not willing) etc...