- Joined
- Dec 15, 2013
- Messages
- 24,410
- Reaction score
- 10,403
You said war torn countriesHave the Rohingyas?
Do you only mean rohingya?
Then ya we can probably take some. Start with 1000 or something
You said war torn countriesHave the Rohingyas?
I specifically mentioned the Rohingyas and not the Syrians because at least with the Syrians there are some more legit security concerns other than the fact that they are simply Muslim.You said war torn countries
Do you only mean rohingya?
Then ya we can probably take some. Start with 1000 or something
As long as they can actually be vetted it’s fine. Their region isn’t my main concern so much as it is what can come with it based on polling data. Since I don’t remember those offhand and don’t care enough to see if pew was even allowed there to ask, that’s my only current criteria. That they can be vetted at all and hat they aren’t sneaking in with the people we’re trying to help (aka not rohingya)I specifically mentioned the Rohingyas and not the Syrians because at least with the Syrians there are some more legit security concerns other than the fact that they are simply Muslim.
This is rich. You guys don't want to let in refugees from legit war zones and theaters of ethnic cleansing but we're supposed to open our arms for people leaving a shithole country of their own making?
I feel for the Boers but the disproportionate outrage over their plight from some on the right is pretty clearly influenced by race.
I'll tell you what, I'd be happy to let in the Boers if we can also allow some Rohingyas to come as well. Would you take that deal?
It's difficult for the US to assist in an imaginary humanitarian crisis.I am not saying I am against taking Rohingyas at all but this is why their situation is different than the Boers.
The Rohingyas have a country next to Burma (I think Bangaldesh) to go to. Once they are their they are not refugees. Just like when a Honduran is safely in Mexico they are not a refugee anymore. The Boers can not go to a nearby country because every country in Africa has very racist policies so the Boers are not safe anywhere close to them. With no country other than Russia willing to assist in this humanitarian crisis, America has a moral duty to aid the Boers.
I specifically mentioned the Rohingyas and not the Syrians because at least with the Syrians there are some more legit security concerns other than the fact that they are simply Muslim.
Bangladesh can only take so many refugees, it is itself a dirt poor country struggling with underdevelopment. Boers have more economic resources and the cultural ties to the Anglosphere that give them more options. Many Boers have already left South Africa over the decades. In many ended up returning as well. They're not as helpless as you're painting them out to be.I am not saying I am against taking Rohingyas at all but this is why their situation is different than the Boers.
The Rohingyas have a country next to Burma (I think Bangaldesh) to go to. Once they are their they are not refugees. Just like when a Honduran is safely in Mexico they are not a refugee anymore. The Boers can not go to a nearby country because every country in Africa has very racist policies so the Boers are not safe anywhere close to them. With no country other than Russia willing to assist in this humanitarian crisis, America has a moral duty to aid the Boers.
Its a separatist movement that's focused on autonomy for its own state, not really global jihad. How many attacks by Rohingyan separatists have there been in the West? Are there any?That's not entirely true. The Burmese crack down on them is a direct result of a terror campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict#Rohingya_separatist_movements_(1972–2001)
Why should whites be in Africa? Look at all the problems they caused and you think they belong their? Just look at the problems they are causing just be existing their.
This is rich. You guys don't want to let in refugees from legit war zones and theaters of ethnic cleansing but we're supposed to open our arms for people leaving a shithole country of their own making?
I feel for the Boers but the disproportionate outrage over their plight from some on the right is pretty clearly influenced by race.
I'll tell you what, I'd be happy to let in the Boers if we can also allow some Rohingyas to come as well. Would you take that deal?
It is of their own making though. All the ills of South Africa today are inextricably tied to the injustices of Apartheid and the massive inequality that resulted from it. Wealth inequality is one of the strongest predictors of violence for a country and South Africa is one of the least equal countries on the planet. That's entirely the fault of the Boers. To whatever extent that there is racial violence its not unrelated to the fact that the wealth gap overlaps with the racial division to a degree."Shithole country of their own making." -You're (there's a lot of you of all ethnicities) insane and in need of deprogramming. If I were African descended, it might freak me out as well that there was proof that a high tech first world European style country could be built in Africa in less than 200 years, as long as sub-saharan Africans were kept at bay. Facing reality is the first step towards doing it all on your own though, bro.
Wtf are you going on about? The Rohingyas have been there for generations and yet the Burmese government never tried to integrate them while never allowing them autonomy. The situation of that country is entirely the fault of the Burmese government for resorting to ethnic cleansing instead of integrating the Rohingyas or simply allowing them autonomy.Also, rohingyas assaulted and insulted the already established civilized culture, they didn't create it out of thin air and create some of the world's greatest cities in the blink of an eye.. There s not much comparison between the plight. Also, one area will return to peace and normalcy without the group, the other is going to collapse.
Reality. Live in it.
In a shocking turn of events people lose motivation and their productivity goes down the toilet if you threaten to take their livelihood away. Whodathought? I'm sure those farms will also be left in pristine condition when the man comes to take them away. I'm certain of it, in fact.
You haven't taken into account that 90% of the land in South Africa belongs to whites. In SA land is collateral ,this is one of the problems that black have in SA, they have no collateral(land) so they can never get loans to start a business. As far as the land goes immediately after Apartheid whites began claiming land that had never actually belonged to the during Apartheid. That's something you never hear from the Boers and their sympathizers.In a shocking turn of events people lose motivation and their productivity goes down the toilet if you threaten to take their livelihood away. Whodathought? I'm sure those farms will also be left in pristine condition when the man comes to take them away. I'm certain of it, in fact.
In a shocking turn of events people lose motivation and their productivity goes down the toilet if you threaten to take their livelihood away. Whodathought? I'm sure those farms will also be left in pristine condition when the man comes to take them away. I'm certain of it, in fact.
Who is going to take the Boers in besides Russia if they destroy the land because they decided to throw a hissy fit over a situation entirely of their own making? They will have little choice but to stay in SA and suffer the consequences of their actions, which will be very, very harsh indeed.You make a good point. I can imagine Boers making it a habit of sowing salt into any field tagged for forfeiture. This would likely escalate into all out civil war as SA struggles to net any value of their newly acquired assets.
You're right. I seldom rake irrelevant points into consideration. Once all the land is appropriated do you think it will go to the original inhabitants or the black folks who arrived at the same time as the Boers?You haven't taken into account that 90% of the land in South Africa belongs to whites. In SA land is collateral ,this is one of the problems that black have in SA, they have no collateral(land) so they can never get loans to start a business. As far as the land goes immediately after Apartheid whites began claiming land that had never actually belonged to the during Apartheid. That's something you never hear from the Boers and their sympathizers.
Look at my first post in this thread. I would leave my farm a useless ruin if I was these folks. Guaranteed. The only question is to what extent. There's an article posted in here about a farmer saying the same thing. No matter what, if they go through with this theft the intended beneficiaries will suffer the most. This seems like a lose/lose scenario for everyone concerned.You make a good point. I can imagine Boers making it a habit of sowing salt into any field tagged for forfeiture. This would likely escalate into all out civil war as SA struggles to net any value of their newly acquired assets.
Look at my first post in this thread. I would leave my farm a useless ruin if I was these folks. Guaranteed. The only question is to what extent. There's an article posted in here about a farmer saying the same thing. No matter what, if they go through with this theft the intended beneficiaries will suffer the most. This seems like a lose/lose scenario for everyone concerned.
There were Bantus already in eastern SA as early as the 11th century. Ohter black peoples have inhabited SA for 180,000 years. Besides we wouldn't have this problem if the Boers acted like civilized human beings in the first place. When you implement something as barbaric as Aparthied you shouldn't expect much sympathy.You're right. I seldom rake irrelevant points into consideration. Once all the land is appropriated do you think it will go to the original inhabitants or the black folks who arrived at the same time as the Boers?
Agreed. This is either a pocket lining proposal or one intended to retain power. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny from a justice or economic perspective. The land wouldn't be returned to the those who lived there prior to colonization nor would it benefit the country in any way. Quite the contrary.Unless the intended beneficiaries are party and/or tribal loyalists. Usually how these things play out, using populist black nationalist rhetoric to enrich their own positions.