“As it does with everything in life, Islam has its own views about migration. For us migration is for an individual’s gain—a better job, for instance. But for Islam, migration was the beginning of Mohammed’s success. He preached the religion for 13 years and converted 150 Arabs to Islam. After he migrated to Medina, he became and politician and jihadist, which led to every Arab in Arabia becoming a Muslim.
After Mohammed’s death, Islam exploded out of Arabia in its second migration. When Islam settles into a society, the society becomes all Islamic (with a couple of exceptions—Spain and the Balkans). Islam does not assimilate, but dominates. This is because of its Sharia law.
The purpose of migration is to start jihad and the purpose of jihad is install the Sharia. Under the Sharia, the other religions are subjected to taxes, domination and humiliation. After enough time, everyone will become a Muslim.
Today in the West, we see the beginning of the annihilation of our civilization due to the deference we pay to Islamic migration and Sharia and we refuse to see the true nature and goals of Islam—complete domination of all aspects of our society.”
https://politicalislam.com/hijra-islamic-migration/
Many Muslim-majority countries do host large numbers of refugees but they have not enabled the illegal immigration invasion that most G20 nations have.
Turkey hosts ~3.6M Syrian refugees (the largest in the world), while Pakistan and Iran host millions of Afghan refugees. Bangladesh is hosting 1.26m refugees while Egypt is hosting over 800,000.
Doc Brown: Data? Where we're going, we don't need data!!!!
Lt Col Jessop: Data? You want data??! You can't handle the data!!!
See also: never let facts get in the way of a good spin narrative and bias confirmation!
Note: if we ran this post through a statistical analyzer, we'd come to the conclusion that 87.5% of participants on GAW have no real interest in facts, but are willing to accept any statement as long as it dove-tails into their bias and perceived goals.
To be fair, we are in a post-fact reality in a lot of ways now. Sure, they still exist technically, but very little can be truly verified. Big reason to focus on developing reflexively critical thinking.
Might wouldn’t hurt for us to lay low on the anti-vaccination talk for a bit and get those autism rates boostered back up a bit, though.
"none of the 56 muslim countries are taking in refugees"
I think this statement is patently false. Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.
You don't arrive at truth by simply adopting false claims that tout your points.
It's become increasingly clear that injecting Muslims into (formerly?) Christian nations of the West is part of a grander strategy to undermine and destroy these nations, but its simply not true that no Muslim countries accept (Muslim) refugees.
I use the terms immigrants and refugees interchangeably as Canadian, Austrian, EU, biden admin have used them interchangeably and over run countries to destroy culture and so forth. It certainly is not accidental.
You can choose to use the terms interchangeably, but its not useful or correct. I could call salt pepper and pepper salt, but they are still different things.
I mean, go ahead, but don't expect other people to understand what you are saying!
I mean, your subject line is wrong (no references at all), your claims about population are at direct odds with available records, and you use certain words as if they are synonyms when any reasonable dictionary clarifies that they mean separate things.
Interesting approach. How interested you are in truth vs how interested you are in satisfying your emotions its kind of hard to tell. No disrespect intended.
We could have this discussion objectively. The problems and challenges of the mass-migration, nation-destroying agendas are real. But playing fast and loose with facts doesn't really help, imo.
I have been posting on this site for years... This was a rare exception I posted without sauce... You should know that just like I have familiarity with you because I follow the board closely.
You can say there is no disrespect intended but it doesn't come across as sincere, to be as frank with you, as you like to be with others... Frankly it is a shitty approach within the community who should be helping each other.
I always invite discussion and having read lots of your posts I would welcome discussion with you as peers. If you choose to continue to scold me like a teacher to student for "playing fast and lose" I will just block you because you are not offering a humble opinion whatsoever! Its attacking, arrogant and not helpful. You should do better than that.
One of the hardest things to do on this board is to offer genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes. I suppose that, as a general rule, its good to steer away from that, as more often than not, its taken as some sort of personal attack.
You should know that just like I have familiarity with you
I appreciate you sharing your view here, but a) frankly, I'm not that familiar with your postings, probably because they focus on topics I don't have much interest in (just guessing), and b) I don't accept the premise here: that "you should know my work because I know your work".
I hope you don't feel slighted, but I think that's outside my control. While I did recognize your tag to some extent, you aren't quite familiar (to me).
I don't mind you being frank, but I don't see (or agree) that "it is a shitty approach" for me to frankly express that it seems to me you are (were) focusing more on your subjective reactions to the situation than on actual facts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the feedback (aka my impression) was not issued in order to achieve an ad hominem attack or to somehow denigrate you, win brownie points, or achieve some sort of (useless) argument victory.
I'm not interested in any of those.
But what else is one to conclude? I didn't approach your post and comments based on any back knowledge of your track record, but simply on what was written:
"85% of the world's refugees are muslim", and "not one of the muslim countries are taking in refugees"
Not only did you not post sauce, the claims were very quickly refuted by publicly available sources. So, without any sauce on your side, is it unreasonable to wonder why these claims were made?
"roughly 10 years we went from 30 million people to 40 million"
Again, very easily refuted using publicly available sources. Approximately an increase of 5 million (I think the figure was 5.5) in Canadian population.
"I use the terms 'refugee' and 'immigrant' interchangeably"
My dad was not a refugee, but he was an immigrant (to my country).
Do you think its "a shitty approach" to call in to question the very basic claims you continued to make (without posting any sauce)?
In my view, there is a real problem on this board (notwithstanding that this board is a great board compared to most of what else is out there) that too many of us simply and blithely (it appears) just accept anything posted in headlines and off hand comments without even questioning the facts or the veracity of the claims.
Is it wrong or "shitty" to question claims? I don't think so, personally. Is it wrong or "shitty" to question whether someone is more focused on their emotional reactions than on facts or accuracy? Again, I don't think so.
The "truth community" has been under serious attack for quite some time. When the Great Awakening began, people were a lot more concerned (imo) about ferreting out the truth and the facts, and avoiding the established group think. Now, however, it appears that a vast number of so-called awakened (not just here on this board, but out there in the wild) simply gravitate towards whatever narratives (claims) fit into their particular biases or which make them feel comfortable in their emotional state.
Reflecting on how we process information internally (i.e. what role our emotions play vs critical thinking approaches) is an important, if not critical, theme, imo.
who should be helping each other.
So...... we help each other by NOT asking or questioning claims, NOT refuting them when available evidence contradicts them, and by applying NO critical thinking in regards to how we, collectively, and individually, approach the information we are dealing in?
(And by information, i mean, anything that is written, factual, opinion, or otherwise).
If you choose to continue to scold me like a teacher to student for "playing fast and lose" I will just block you because you are not offering a humble opinion whatsoever! Its attacking, arrogant and not helpful. You should do better than that.
"scold me like a teacher" - a completely subjective interpretation you have chosen to adopt.
"I will just block you" - a) blocking someone on the board simply means they cannot direct message you; it does not remove any of my content from the feed, which is universal (you'll still see it) and b) so what? I really do not care if you 'block me' or read my content or not. Your choice here does not affect my desire to contribute to the board, or the reasons I do it.
"you are not offering a humble opinion" - a completely subjective opinion, one you are welcome to, but not one that I share.
I would welcome discussion with you as peers
If you were really interacting with me as a peer, I think you would appreciate frank feedback, shared impressions (delivered with no intent to achieve some sort of ego boost or rhetorical victory for brownies points) and being challenged in your claims.
It seems like you want some sort of validation, and feel put out because I haven't delivered it to you. Because I questioned or refuted your claims, and then had the temerity to suggest you are more focused on (your subjective views) than on the facts.
I AM appreciative that you took the time and effort to reply. And to share your views. But, on multiple points, I simply do not agree, although I do think your expressed impressions re: my tone, are something I should really think about.
I'd also like to stress one thing: I think its good to give feedback, if done in good faith. However, you do not get to decide if something someone writes is "not ... a humble opinion" or "Its attacking, arrogant".
If you tell me that this is how it comes across to you, I can easily consider that and reflect. And, if I find that feedback useful or helpful, I can take it on board and make of it what I will. But just because that is YOUR view and impression, does not make it so.
I do not think my approach to your post and comments was "shitty" or that I am "not having a humble opinion" or that I'm attacking you.
I can certainly be arrogant, or come across as arrogant (actually I try to work very hard on humility as a general life principle) and it might be fair to say that my tone came across as a bit arrogant and/or even condescending; its a personal flaw I constantly run into ESPECIALLY when attempting to offer aforementioned "genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes".
But I also think that, as a peer, you would welcome the criticism(s), or at least address it, and show where it is wrong, or right, rather than purely focusing on how it is delivered.
Example: how exactly where your 3 / 4 primary claims not false? (refugee stats, country stats, pop. stats and the meaning of words)
And if they are wildly inaccurate (as I suggested), why?
I'll conclude by commenting that good communication is rarely easily accomplished. If it is, its is often because two (or more) people's particular ego-centric agendas coincide, for a time.
Accomplishing solid, good communication often requires a back and forth, or working to find a common signal and common wavelength. I think so far we've uncovered that our two wavelengths are at odds, to some extent. Where we go from here is a choice.
I'm happy to continue the dialog, but only if we can maturely give facts their due role, and discuss them, and then share feedback in good faith, while acknowledging that 'my subjective impressions' do NOT equal facts, or necessarily correlate to reality.
In other words, thanks for engaging. Apologies if I came across as haughty or arrogant. It was not intentional, and any feedback (or impressions) I have offered were offered in good faith. Also, I'll continue to question or call out claims by anyone that I think are unfounded, inaccurate, worth questioning, or which simply get gobbled up due to bias confirmation and other motivations. I'll also continue to offer critiques of HOW we, collectively and individually, handle the information we do, on the board.
To quote Q: "You are the news now. Handle w/ care."
(q3616) (for me, one of the most important Q drops....)
How many of the STAY in these countries? The are gathered there, before the NGO’s organise passage into any Christian nation they are trying to destroy.
Funny how Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world and yet the countries in Africa where they're being killed are not the ones fleeing to the UK. It's all the muslim Africans
Well they aren't really taken in as refugees. Western leaders won't admit that they have created societies where people don't have enough children and they are really taken in to fill in population gaps. And Muslim countries are one of the few countries still having children.
In other words western societies are no longer self sustaining. They don't necessarily need all this labor but they do need to keep up their populations in the long run to stand a chance against future wars, against other countries (i.e. Muslim countries) which will significantly outnumber them.
But still not a good strategy if the plan for future wars is to be Muslim countries vs Western armies with significant Muslim populations.
DNA testing on the spot and QRF military..".round 'em up, head 'em out [crack the whip]...Rawhide!"
Japan has begun this REMOVAL OF MUSLIM PROCESS. It can happen, because it must.
This just goes to show that infiltration is their goal.
Hijra, Islamic Migration
“As it does with everything in life, Islam has its own views about migration. For us migration is for an individual’s gain—a better job, for instance. But for Islam, migration was the beginning of Mohammed’s success. He preached the religion for 13 years and converted 150 Arabs to Islam. After he migrated to Medina, he became and politician and jihadist, which led to every Arab in Arabia becoming a Muslim.
After Mohammed’s death, Islam exploded out of Arabia in its second migration. When Islam settles into a society, the society becomes all Islamic (with a couple of exceptions—Spain and the Balkans). Islam does not assimilate, but dominates. This is because of its Sharia law.
The purpose of migration is to start jihad and the purpose of jihad is install the Sharia. Under the Sharia, the other religions are subjected to taxes, domination and humiliation. After enough time, everyone will become a Muslim.
Today in the West, we see the beginning of the annihilation of our civilization due to the deference we pay to Islamic migration and Sharia and we refuse to see the true nature and goals of Islam—complete domination of all aspects of our society.” https://politicalislam.com/hijra-islamic-migration/
https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/unpd-egm_200010_un_2001_replacementmigration.pdf
We already knew that.
MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY.
🇵🇰 Pakistan: 10 years jail + fine.
🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia: 15 years imprisonment.
🇮🇷Iran: Up to 25 years prison.
🇦🇫 Afghanistan: Execution.
🇾🇪Yemen: Prison or death penalty.
🇸🇩Sudan: Prison
🇬🇧 Great Britain: free housing, health care, education, food, phone, cash. — ALL FUNDED BY THE TAX PAYER
Over 65K illegals have arrived since July 2024.
What happened to Britain??
Many Muslim-majority countries do host large numbers of refugees but they have not enabled the illegal immigration invasion that most G20 nations have. Turkey hosts ~3.6M Syrian refugees (the largest in the world), while Pakistan and Iran host millions of Afghan refugees. Bangladesh is hosting 1.26m refugees while Egypt is hosting over 800,000.
https://www.unhcr.org/tr/en/kime-yardim-ediyoruz/refugees-and-asylum-seekers-tuerkiye?utm_source=chatgpt.com#:~:text=T%C3%BCrkiye%20is%20one,from%20other%20nationalities.
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/2026/3/unhcr-mobilizing-across-region-as-middle-east-crisis-escalates/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#:~:text=Iran%20hosts%201.65%20million%20refugees%20and%20others%20needing%20international%20protection.
https://www.unhcr.org/where-we-work/countries/bangladesh?dataset=POP&yearsMode=range&selectedYears=%5B2012%2C2026%5D&level=OPR&category=PTY&fundingSource=ALS&compareBy=%5B%22category%22%5D&levelCompare=%5B%5B%22OBGD_ABC%22%5D%5D&viewType=chart&chartType=bar&contextualDataset=BUD&tableDataView=absolute
https://www.unhcr.org/where-we-work/countries/egypt?dataset=POP&yearsMode=range&selectedYears=%5B2012%2C2026%5D&level=OPR&category=PTY&fundingSource=ALS&compareBy=%5B%22category%22%5D&levelCompare=%5B%5B%22OEGY_ABC%22%5D%5D&viewType=chart&chartType=bar&contextualDataset=BUD&tableDataView=absolute#:~:text=Egypt%20hosts%20over%20800%2C000%20refugees%20and%20asylum%2Dseekers%20from%20diverse%20nationalities.%20Sudanese%20nationals%20make%20up%20the%20largest%20group%2C%20followed%20by%20Syrians.%20Other%20significant%20populations%20include%20individuals%20from%20South%20Sudan%2C%20Eritrea%2C%20Ethiopia%2C%20Yemen%2C%20Somalia%2C%20and%20Iraq.
While these countries may take in the dregs of the Stone Age sand people, they do not keep them there.
They may have “refugee camps”, but these are just staging areas for the invasion.
NGO’s quickly organise their passage into any Christian country where they can begin to destabilise and destroy their culture.
Rinse and repeat.
Welcome, handshake. Isn't dw Deutschewelle, that well known German fake news site?
But lonely liberal women love the muzzies.
Until they end in pieces
They’d rather die than be called racist
This. Being racist keeps them out of progressive heaven.
There was the riddle of the century:
HOW DO CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS “STRENGTHEN” AMERICA BUT NOW THEIR OWN COUNTRY?
🤬
100 out of 100 liberals think this is a coincidence but America deserves it because "sToLeN LaNd."
They won't tell us where the whites and Christians are allowed to live.
You gots to have standards.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. ~0
It’s antisemitic to notice your replacement.
Ah well. Nobody’s perfect. :)
They know something we are ignoring.
They are terrorist fuktards.
Not immigrants they are spores.
Got any data for that claim?
There’s plenty of debooooonk from sources we don’t trust.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=85%25+refugees+muslim
Doc Brown: Data? Where we're going, we don't need data!!!!
Lt Col Jessop: Data? You want data??! You can't handle the data!!!
See also: never let facts get in the way of a good spin narrative and bias confirmation!
Note: if we ran this post through a statistical analyzer, we'd come to the conclusion that 87.5% of participants on GAW have no real interest in facts, but are willing to accept any statement as long as it dove-tails into their bias and perceived goals.
Disclaimer: limited sample size
To be fair, we are in a post-fact reality in a lot of ways now. Sure, they still exist technically, but very little can be truly verified. Big reason to focus on developing reflexively critical thinking.
Might wouldn’t hurt for us to lay low on the anti-vaccination talk for a bit and get those autism rates boostered back up a bit, though.
Boy, you said it!
Methinks the costs would outweigh the benefits. How about just a selective breeding program?
Like Epstein was working on...?
"none of the 56 muslim countries are taking in refugees"
I think this statement is patently false. Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.
You don't arrive at truth by simply adopting false claims that tout your points.
It's become increasingly clear that injecting Muslims into (formerly?) Christian nations of the West is part of a grander strategy to undermine and destroy these nations, but its simply not true that no Muslim countries accept (Muslim) refugees.
e.g.
https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics/
It's not allowed to use the 'United Nations' as your source-sauce anymore. They are the invaders, crooks and criminals.
Interesting point... how many refugees? Is it like Canada where in roughly 10 years we went from 30 million people to 40 million?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/
Approx 5 mill pop increase in 10 years, much of this being immigrants.
Immigrants and refugees are very different things.
The Canadian govt appears to have adopted a deliberate policy of dilution via over-immigration, something Australia is also currently experiencing.
I use the terms immigrants and refugees interchangeably as Canadian, Austrian, EU, biden admin have used them interchangeably and over run countries to destroy culture and so forth. It certainly is not accidental.
You can choose to use the terms interchangeably, but its not useful or correct. I could call salt pepper and pepper salt, but they are still different things.
I mean, go ahead, but don't expect other people to understand what you are saying!
I mean, your subject line is wrong (no references at all), your claims about population are at direct odds with available records, and you use certain words as if they are synonyms when any reasonable dictionary clarifies that they mean separate things.
Interesting approach. How interested you are in truth vs how interested you are in satisfying your emotions its kind of hard to tell. No disrespect intended.
We could have this discussion objectively. The problems and challenges of the mass-migration, nation-destroying agendas are real. But playing fast and loose with facts doesn't really help, imo.
I have been posting on this site for years... This was a rare exception I posted without sauce... You should know that just like I have familiarity with you because I follow the board closely.
You can say there is no disrespect intended but it doesn't come across as sincere, to be as frank with you, as you like to be with others... Frankly it is a shitty approach within the community who should be helping each other.
I always invite discussion and having read lots of your posts I would welcome discussion with you as peers. If you choose to continue to scold me like a teacher to student for "playing fast and lose" I will just block you because you are not offering a humble opinion whatsoever! Its attacking, arrogant and not helpful. You should do better than that.
One of the hardest things to do on this board is to offer genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes. I suppose that, as a general rule, its good to steer away from that, as more often than not, its taken as some sort of personal attack.
I appreciate you sharing your view here, but a) frankly, I'm not that familiar with your postings, probably because they focus on topics I don't have much interest in (just guessing), and b) I don't accept the premise here: that "you should know my work because I know your work".
I hope you don't feel slighted, but I think that's outside my control. While I did recognize your tag to some extent, you aren't quite familiar (to me).
I don't mind you being frank, but I don't see (or agree) that "it is a shitty approach" for me to frankly express that it seems to me you are (were) focusing more on your subjective reactions to the situation than on actual facts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the feedback (aka my impression) was not issued in order to achieve an ad hominem attack or to somehow denigrate you, win brownie points, or achieve some sort of (useless) argument victory.
I'm not interested in any of those.
But what else is one to conclude? I didn't approach your post and comments based on any back knowledge of your track record, but simply on what was written:
"85% of the world's refugees are muslim", and "not one of the muslim countries are taking in refugees"
Not only did you not post sauce, the claims were very quickly refuted by publicly available sources. So, without any sauce on your side, is it unreasonable to wonder why these claims were made?
"roughly 10 years we went from 30 million people to 40 million"
Again, very easily refuted using publicly available sources. Approximately an increase of 5 million (I think the figure was 5.5) in Canadian population.
"I use the terms 'refugee' and 'immigrant' interchangeably"
My dad was not a refugee, but he was an immigrant (to my country).
Do you think its "a shitty approach" to call in to question the very basic claims you continued to make (without posting any sauce)?
In my view, there is a real problem on this board (notwithstanding that this board is a great board compared to most of what else is out there) that too many of us simply and blithely (it appears) just accept anything posted in headlines and off hand comments without even questioning the facts or the veracity of the claims.
Is it wrong or "shitty" to question claims? I don't think so, personally. Is it wrong or "shitty" to question whether someone is more focused on their emotional reactions than on facts or accuracy? Again, I don't think so.
The "truth community" has been under serious attack for quite some time. When the Great Awakening began, people were a lot more concerned (imo) about ferreting out the truth and the facts, and avoiding the established group think. Now, however, it appears that a vast number of so-called awakened (not just here on this board, but out there in the wild) simply gravitate towards whatever narratives (claims) fit into their particular biases or which make them feel comfortable in their emotional state.
Reflecting on how we process information internally (i.e. what role our emotions play vs critical thinking approaches) is an important, if not critical, theme, imo.
So...... we help each other by NOT asking or questioning claims, NOT refuting them when available evidence contradicts them, and by applying NO critical thinking in regards to how we, collectively, and individually, approach the information we are dealing in?
(And by information, i mean, anything that is written, factual, opinion, or otherwise).
"scold me like a teacher" - a completely subjective interpretation you have chosen to adopt.
"I will just block you" - a) blocking someone on the board simply means they cannot direct message you; it does not remove any of my content from the feed, which is universal (you'll still see it) and b) so what? I really do not care if you 'block me' or read my content or not. Your choice here does not affect my desire to contribute to the board, or the reasons I do it.
"you are not offering a humble opinion" - a completely subjective opinion, one you are welcome to, but not one that I share.
If you were really interacting with me as a peer, I think you would appreciate frank feedback, shared impressions (delivered with no intent to achieve some sort of ego boost or rhetorical victory for brownies points) and being challenged in your claims.
It seems like you want some sort of validation, and feel put out because I haven't delivered it to you. Because I questioned or refuted your claims, and then had the temerity to suggest you are more focused on (your subjective views) than on the facts.
I AM appreciative that you took the time and effort to reply. And to share your views. But, on multiple points, I simply do not agree, although I do think your expressed impressions re: my tone, are something I should really think about.
I'd also like to stress one thing: I think its good to give feedback, if done in good faith. However, you do not get to decide if something someone writes is "not ... a humble opinion" or "Its attacking, arrogant".
If you tell me that this is how it comes across to you, I can easily consider that and reflect. And, if I find that feedback useful or helpful, I can take it on board and make of it what I will. But just because that is YOUR view and impression, does not make it so.
I do not think my approach to your post and comments was "shitty" or that I am "not having a humble opinion" or that I'm attacking you.
I can certainly be arrogant, or come across as arrogant (actually I try to work very hard on humility as a general life principle) and it might be fair to say that my tone came across as a bit arrogant and/or even condescending; its a personal flaw I constantly run into ESPECIALLY when attempting to offer aforementioned "genuine feedback that addresses impressions of contributors attitudes".
But I also think that, as a peer, you would welcome the criticism(s), or at least address it, and show where it is wrong, or right, rather than purely focusing on how it is delivered.
Example: how exactly where your 3 / 4 primary claims not false? (refugee stats, country stats, pop. stats and the meaning of words)
And if they are wildly inaccurate (as I suggested), why?
I'll conclude by commenting that good communication is rarely easily accomplished. If it is, its is often because two (or more) people's particular ego-centric agendas coincide, for a time.
Accomplishing solid, good communication often requires a back and forth, or working to find a common signal and common wavelength. I think so far we've uncovered that our two wavelengths are at odds, to some extent. Where we go from here is a choice.
I'm happy to continue the dialog, but only if we can maturely give facts their due role, and discuss them, and then share feedback in good faith, while acknowledging that 'my subjective impressions' do NOT equal facts, or necessarily correlate to reality.
In other words, thanks for engaging. Apologies if I came across as haughty or arrogant. It was not intentional, and any feedback (or impressions) I have offered were offered in good faith. Also, I'll continue to question or call out claims by anyone that I think are unfounded, inaccurate, worth questioning, or which simply get gobbled up due to bias confirmation and other motivations. I'll also continue to offer critiques of HOW we, collectively and individually, handle the information we do, on the board.
To quote Q: "You are the news now. Handle w/ care."
(q3616) (for me, one of the most important Q drops....)
(edits: minor edits to smooth the text)
How many of the STAY in these countries? The are gathered there, before the NGO’s organise passage into any Christian nation they are trying to destroy.
Funny how Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world and yet the countries in Africa where they're being killed are not the ones fleeing to the UK. It's all the muslim Africans
Plenty of Nigerian Christians coming to Canada and the UK.
Well they aren't really taken in as refugees. Western leaders won't admit that they have created societies where people don't have enough children and they are really taken in to fill in population gaps. And Muslim countries are one of the few countries still having children.
In other words western societies are no longer self sustaining. They don't necessarily need all this labor but they do need to keep up their populations in the long run to stand a chance against future wars, against other countries (i.e. Muslim countries) which will significantly outnumber them.
But still not a good strategy if the plan for future wars is to be Muslim countries vs Western armies with significant Muslim populations.
Only take in white south African refugees
Ok handshake
DNA testing on the spot and QRF military..".round 'em up, head 'em out [crack the whip]...Rawhide!" Japan has begun this REMOVAL OF MUSLIM PROCESS. It can happen, because it must.
Dubai needs to be more welcoming.
Go back to reddit to the other treasonous degenerates. Oh, and you will never be a woman.