I will be on my way, My rant on the off-topic threads are done.. Thank you and goodbye.

Sweet Mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, Syria has gone to shit. Half of its pre-war population is either dead or migrated

This seems dubious, do you have a source?

Russia and the USA have started up their proxy war bullshit again in what many believe to be the worst humanitarian crisis going on right now.

As far as I know, the international co-operation is pretty good, and I think America even agreed to limited-ly work with Iranian military.

So let's start with Assad and his civil war. I don't know much about why it started, but I do know that many countries say that Assad has used chemical weapons on civilians at least once. The best President evah, Mr. Barack Obama, drew a red line at something like this, but pussied out when it happened, stating that, "the world drew the red line." Assad and those supporting him say that the rebels AKA the terrorists, as Assad and co. call them, are the ones to use chemical weapons.

It's important to note that all major unions in this war have done some war crimes. And by "pussy out", do you mean preserve some peace and stop wrecking the site more than it has already been? Anyhow, but he made the poor choice to not "pussy out" and be limited-ly involved.

With ISIS's declaration of war against Russia, Putin has been going ham on everyone. ISIS and terrebel alike.

This is a misconception. Iran has been leading the "going ham" since it joined the war. It has just about 4x times troops than Russia in Syria, and a much bigger proportion of them are footsoldiers, not just bombers.

Speaking of ISIS, they bombed Damascus. Damascus! How many world capitals are they going to attack? It was nowhere near as bad as what happened in Paris, as only 20 were confirmed to be killed, but still, f*ckin Damascus!

You're surprised that a country with a 4 sided civil war has its capital bombed? And what happened in Dimashq doesn't stop in a few days - it's much worse than in Paris.

Europe, as well as the neighboring nations of Syria, have been swamped with refugees.

The EU as a whole is not "swamped". Some of the neighbouring countries (though actually the gulf states refused all immigrants from there, all.) are swamped.

Christ, people, when half a country emigrates, something's going on.

I don't think anyone is denying "something is going on".

And then we have European countries bowing down to these refugees, slowly changing their ways to accommodate to the culture of the sods they're helping out.

That's precisely the opposite of what's happening - in the EU as a whole, the Europeans are definitely xenophobic, and some countries (Hungary and Slovakia I think did this, amongst others) have agreed to accept a small amount of refugees as long as they're Christian. I mean, c'mon, Jordan, an actual parliamentary monarchy, with Sunni as theode faith, isn't throwing out Christians. It's only Germany and I think Holland that are being somewhat friendly to the immigrants - and even then, it's still iffy, with some incidents.

And even if they did agree to accept refugees, first, even if the EU accepted the whole population of Syria and Iraq, Muslim Arabs would still be a minority by far. And folk don't assimilate to minority cultures except in special situations (f.e. Bosnans and Albanians in Ottoman Turkey, converting to Islam, many Albanians were promoted to military and government). In truth, folk just about don't assimilate at all unless forced to which leads me to my second point:

Even if the Muslims were the majority in the EU, which couldn't really happen unless a third of all Muslims went there, the Europeans wouldn't just give up and assimilate - they'd perhaps even more flaunt their culture, since opposites, in human relations, usually drift to be more opposed to each other.

French Burger King takes bacon out of the menu (although this is more business related than anything)

I greatly doubt that restaurants will take food out of their menu unless they are legally required to, or it's not profitable enough. Probably business-related.

people and government antagonizing the women sexually assaulted in Cologne

This was such a small happening, I recall reading a short news article the day after about it, but pretty much forgot. Noone else talked about it afterwards. I don't believe it's being "antagonised".

Brits trying to ban Donald Trump but not the bozos marching around for Sharia Law and the death of those who insult Islam.

The Donald Trump ban petition was mostly a joke. But name me anyone influential or powerful (or has a chance to be) that "marches about for Sharia Law and the death of those who insult Islam."

Let's just put the poor fools out of their misery. It's not like the UN would stop us from doing it.

I thought this whole writing was supposed to be for less involvement in Mashriq? This is too vaguely written; what are you suggesting America do that the UN could potentially be unhappy about?

Do you think this war is just going to end ? It isn't the death tolls will continue to rise.

+

It will if we do 2 things. The first is realize that dictators are the only way to prevent terrorism in the Middle East, and support Assad unequivocally provided he refrains from severe abuses after the war. The second is to completely and utterly destroy them with an uninhibited total war. Credible military figures agree we could defeat IS in under a year.

The first is true, in a general sense, but it's not like the terrorism is coming from the decentralisation and freedoms of the countries - it's coming from countries that have interest that the site be unstable. Most Americans say that that Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator. So he was replaced by another in 2003. And Bashar Assad, he is thought of the same way. So how did the war in Syria begin in the first place? And second, the American military did that in Iraq and Afghanistan. They accomplished their main objects - killing Hussein and greatly lowering the Taliban's power - and yet, there's been non stop war in those countries since 2003/2001.

The Paris attacks were perpetrated by our enemies, on our allies. We have no connection like that with Syrians.

I actually think that the Nigerians are the most ignored. Name me one of the Nigerian villages that West Province killed every single villager in. But anyhow, it's not "your" foes, nor "your" allies, it's all the American government's foes and friends. Tu parles français? Do you have any personal ties to France? If not, why do you put so much importance on France then?

I won't apologize for the fact that I care more for our allies and Americans and Westerners that I can relate to than a foreign, unnamed civilian ignoring our culture to impose their own wherever they go.

You quite should apologise. We're all humans. I get that some don't speak English, and there's some tongue ties there, but that cuts out most of Europe. And "ignoring our culture to impose their own whenever they go", it's called keeping tradition. And I don't/didn't see any of that coming from the dead killed by "your" foes.

We kicked Iraq's and Afghanistan's asses both times; we just fucked up by nation-building.

Nation-building...first, I think you mean government-building, second, why does nation-building make Americans, Arabs, and Iranians keep dying?

You know, if our leaders wouldn't half-ass wars, then the USA would have a much better track record.

What wars are you talking about?

You act like 99% of wars aren't built on that.

So why do you propose more war?

People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Arguments "assigning blame" might convince someone, what will solutions do? Who will listen?

Here's only a few I can offer (obviously none of us are experts at Middle-East policy...and even experts of the Middle East get confused)

1) Give Kurdistan Independence in Syria
2) Remove Turkey from NATO and impose sanctions on them to weaken Erdogan's power
3) Form a coalition of Russia, NATO, and Gulf States to first defeat ISIS through air power and Muslim soldiers only
4) Have Basad step down and given immunity in Russia
5) Have the UN control Free Syria and Iraq as a mandate (like UN controlled Kosovo) until order is restored and a new coalition government composed of moderates (there are very few right now because many are refugees) is formed

1) It already has independence.
2) Don't see why the hate Turkey. Erdoğan's no longer prime minister. And Turkey's barely involved in the war anyway. And how would this end the conflict?
3) Islam is not one stick. It is a tree filled with branches. Just about all Islamic theologists say that the Mashriq is misinterpreting stuff, and in reverse. If you don't help the khalifa, you're not a true Sunni Muslim in the Mashriq's eyes. So this would have the same effect as anything else. And this isn't even talking about the subbranches of Sunni or the different sects (Shia).
4) Bashar Assad, you mean? First, how do you propose that be done, second, how will this help end the war?
5) Maybe.

Edited 2/5/2016 00:57:52

^
+1 for that big reply.

1) It already has independence.

Syrian Kurds don't have formal recognized independence last time I checked. No place on the map is named Kurdistan.

Formal independence does not matter much.

Maybe not to you and me, but it sure as hell matters to the actual people. Political legitimacy is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it requires (sadly) a global consensus. They can't control their own political or historical destiny with the assurance of other countries that they are an independent country that conduct their own affairs.

Also, all things considered, I think Syria was considerable better under Bashar Assad.

Same thing with Egypt and Libya.

They exist regardless of what people say. Donbas exists regardless of what Obushma says.

Thank god you're back!

Sweet Mother Theresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, Syria has gone to shit. Half of its pre-war population is either dead or migrated

This seems dubious, do you have a source?

Sorry, Mother Theresa has never posed on a car.
But yes, half of Syria has either been killed, or migrated. This migration includes interregional and international migration both. If this still doesn't sound right, I'll post a few links later.

As far as I know, the international co-operation is pretty good, and I think America even agreed to limited-ly work with Iranian military.

Against ISIS. We're still aiding the terrebels with supplies. We should have done a lot more once Assad allegedly waged chemical warfare according to what our President once said, but it is far too late now to even think about dethroning Assad, partly because Russia is backing Assad, mostly because we don't need another Iraq, especially when ISIS is right there when the government is abolished.

This is a misconception. Iran has been leading the "going ham" since it joined the war. It has just about 4x times troops than Russia in Syria, and a much bigger proportion of them are footsoldiers, not just bombers.

Hmm, you mean since 2013, correct? I was comparing Russia strictly to the US.

You're surprised that a country with a 4 sided civil war has its capital bombed? And what happened in Dimashq doesn't stop in a few days - it's much worse than in Paris.

I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised that it only got about two minutes of attention from US media. I'm disappointed, though.

I don't think anyone is denying "something is going on".

They're not doing much about it, either. Taking in refugees is one thing. Doing something so the refugees don't have to stay through the foreseeable future, that's something else.

That's precisely the opposite of what's happening - in the EU as a whole, the Europeans are definitely xenophobic, and some countries (Hungary and Slovakia I think did this, amongst others) have agreed to accept a small amount of refugees as long as they're Christian. It's only Germany and I think Holland that are being somewhat friendly to the immigrants - and even then, it's still iffy, with some incidents.

Countries and their people are different entities.

I greatly doubt that restaurants will take food out of their menu unless they are legally required to, or it's not profitable enough. Probably business-related.

French Burger King takes bacon out of the menu (although this is more business related than anything)

This was such a small happening, I recall reading a short news article the day after about it, but pretty much forgot. Noone else talked about it afterwards. I don't believe it's being "antagonised".

It wasn't small in Germany and its city of Cologne. The city is re-enforcing security significantly for it's annual festival that will go on now until Ash Wednesday.

I thought this whole writing was supposed to be for less involvement in Mashriq? This is too vaguely written; what are you suggesting America do that the UN could potentially be unhappy about?

That was just a jab at the UN.

I'm just concerned about how little the media cared about Cologne...
That was probably the point where everyone can draw a line.
But of course, we have to bury it under sob stories of little Syrian orphans.

I'm all for allowing people to live in my country. But when they do behavior that is downright criminal in the country they consider their new home, that's where the line must be drawn. I understand the need to bring your culture with you, but it goes too far when it interferes with the lives of those who aren't part of your culture.
And with every event like this happening, I see myself seeing eye-to-eye with Donald Trump, who I'd now vote for over Bernie, making him my 3rd choice.
Attacks are going off everywhere from Jakarta to San Bernandino. And although the refugees aren't the ones doing it, with so many traveling in such large numbers over the open-border EU, a few ISIS members can slip in, buy some materials from a hardware store, and kill 20 people.

There needs to be a much better way to manage this influx. One that can ensure these people will not die in Syria, but will also be able to root out those that want to bring the chaos of Syria to their destination.

The civil war in Syria started with what many refers to as 'The Arab spring'.* Assad wanted none of those demonstrations, and struck down hard on those who protested.

I am much more interested in the events going on in Europe, as the middle east always had and always will have wars. The paradoxical in defending the actions of immigrants, that is the epitome of ethnocentric behaviour, is perplexing to me. Schengen is ridiculing EU as a whole, displaying the lacking will to act, as nobody wants to pay the bill. Those that accepts refugees, does so with blinks as all they see is cheap labour, not the massive cultural differences.

I fear that all of these recent events (Paris, Cologne, anywhere in Sweden, etc.) will be the drop of water that makes the glass flow over, and either cause a collapse of the European Union, or some kind of uprising caused by the disagreements between the average voter, and the leftist power elite of most modern West and North European societies.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

What's the actual cost of the collapse of the European Union? Its not as if trade will halt between European partners or there will be continental armed conflict between countries, since European counties enjoy considerably more cooperation than most countries. If the EU collapses, it will be because countries don't want to trade in their sovereignty for some semi/quasi idea of a United Federalized Europe, which ignores cultural and political-philosophy based differences between nations in trying to impose 1-size-fits-all solutions to economic and social problems.

I understand the need to bring your culture with you, but it goes too far when it interferes with the lives of those who aren't part of your culture.

I agree to some extent. In most European countries, ghettos have become a problem that needs to be dealt with. In my honest opinion, it is nonsensical to have an influx of immigrants, when you fail to integrate the ones currently residing in your country. I understand the governments craving for cheap labour, but it is a short sighted plan. That said, both parts are to blame here. The government/country for placing immigrants in certain areas, where they don't have to learn the official language, or in any other way engage in society. The immigrants for the unwillingness to change.

There needs to be a much better way to manage this influx. One that can ensure these people will not die in Syria, but will also be able to root out those that want to bring the chaos of Syria to their destination.

There is no reason for them to come to Europe. A variety of international laws ensures that they never have to leave again once they're here, and that's bad for both Europe and the middle east, as this brain drain will have a longsighted negative impact on Syria, and the other countries of origin.

What's the actual cost of the collapse of the European Union?

Economically it would be substantial. The collapse of EU means the collapse of the Euro. At least over time. Greece would go bankrupt, trading between nations would become problematic as a stable currency is needed for proper trade relations.

1-size-fits-all solutions to economic and social problems.

This is actually one of the biggest problems with the Euro. Normally countries can adjust their currency to account for macroeconomic factors, but since most European nations share their currency, that is no longer possible. This hurts countries with slow GDP growth and/or Trade deficits. Spain and Greece are both brilliant examples of countries that are suffering because of this.

Every conversation about Syria suffers from the same thing. People sit around assigning blame instead of trying to talk about possible solutions.

Honestly, what does it matter who's fault it is at this point? The damage is done, now we have to fix it.

+1, so I made a special list...

How to solve syria's problem permanently in 10 steps:

Easy Mode - "Extermination is better than diplomacy"

1) Nuke the White House (if/when Obama is there)
2) Nuke all major Swedish cities
3) Genocide Iraq's population
4) Nuke Aleppo
5) Nuke Raqqa/Rakka
6) Split the two countries in four because why not
7) First part (Capítal: Damascus) to Al-Assad and supporters
8) Second part (Capital: Some shitpile in central Syria) to Sunnis of the Free Syrian army
9) Third part (Capital: Mosul) to Kurdistan
10) Fourth part (Capital: Baghdad) becomes an iranian puppet state

Medium mode - "It can't be done without some bloodshed and major geopolitical changes."

1) Elect a republican in the USA
2) Start a coalition with NATO and CIS members
3) Have the coalition destroy Raqqa/Rakka
4) Destroy Mosul
5) Have Saudi Arabia annex Qatar
6) Split Syria in four countries
7) Kurdistan, ruled by kurds
8) Sunni Syria, ruled by FSA
9) Alawite Syria, ruled by Al-Assad
10) Western Syria, as a puppet state of Israel

Hard mode - "Keep kebab in kebab's territories"

1) Adopt border security policies in every nation in the Eurozone
2) Pressure Qatar into accepting refugees
3) Let Russia proceed
4) Wait for some big attack in the USA and Obama will act (maybe)
5) Get some popcorn
6) Watch things go on
7) Watch Syria become a clone of post-Saddam Iraq when Al-Assad falls
8) Prepare some fighter jets for the next arab spring fail
9) Accept the fact Putin > Obama
10) Enjoy

Expert mode - "Be nice to Putin and Assad"

1) Find ways to exploit Syria
2) Start dealing with Al-Assad
3) Give him full assistance
4) Start being nice to Putin
5) Pressure Ukraine into giving independence to Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea as long as Russia stops support to further rebels
6) Get what's left of Ukraine in the European Union
7) Joint NATO-Russian actions to defeat the ISIS and FSA
8) Al-Assad now likes both the USA and Russia so no cold war like scenario in the country
9) Ukraine will be bitching and so will Iraq, but who cares? 195 other countries can agree it was for the best.
10) Write fanfic of Obama and Putin

Edited 2/5/2016 04:27:58

Expert mode - 6

Russia being 'ok' with Ukraine joining EU would truly be expert mode. :D

It's not coincidental, that the Cuban missile crisis was avoided due to the disarming of missiles in Turkey. I wonder how Russia would feel about missiles even closer.

Syrian Kurds don't have formal recognized independence last time I checked. No place on the map is named Kurdistan.

Formal independence does not matter much.

Maybe not to you and me, but it sure as hell matters to the actual people. Political legitimacy is not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it requires (sadly) a global consensus. They can't control their own political or historical destiny with the assurance of other countries that they are an independent country that conduct their own affairs.

Formal independence does matter for a few things, so say they do get "formally independent". Then what?

And yes, folk and countries can control their own politic destiny (what is historic destiny? oxymoron). It might be called "illegitimate" by other countries, but it's still there. Not recognising a country is just an annoying thing governments do when they want to take it a step further than cutting all diplomatic ties.

Also, all things considered, I think Syria was considerable better under Bashar Assad.

Who is it under now?

Doing something so the refugees don't have to stay through the foreseeable future, that's something else.

Well, assuming they want to go back, what do you think should be done?

Countries and their people are different entities.

The country is influenced by their folk. But just to show some backing,

52 to at most 38.

It wasn't small in Germany and its city of Cologne. The city is re-enforcing security significantly for it's annual festival that will go on now until Ash Wednesday.

Ok, I looked it up. It's 1 incident, with no deaths. Thinking about how many Arabs there are in Germany, it's a very small portion, probably about 8% (counting nonMuslims), which would make it about 1/10000 Arabs. It's still much higher than Germany, but think about these folk's upbringing. I want to make a scientific analogy here: The Maxwell Spread. These Muslims are at the fast end and will fly away (be imprisoned), especially thinking about their upbringing. The heat applied are the migrants, which admittedly, after looking into this a bit, might need to slow (but not stop) the intake for a bit.

I'm just concerned about how little the media cared about Cologne...
That was probably the point where everyone can draw a line.
But of course, we have to bury it under sob stories of little Syrian orphans.

Köln: No deaths. "Syrian orphans": Unfathomably many deaths.

I'm all for allowing people to live in my country. But when they do behavior that is downright criminal in the country they consider their new home, that's where the line must be drawn.

Noone is saying these folk should not be arrested.

I understand the need to bring your culture with you, but it goes too far when it interferes with the lives of those who aren't part of your culture.

It's usually not just culture, but murders, and violent bandits, which are transcultural.

And with every event like this happening, I see myself seeing eye-to-eye with Donald Trump, who I'd now vote for over Bernie, making him my 3rd choice.

It's important to see it from the big picture. 9999/10000 are relatively harmless.

a few ISIS members can slip in, buy some materials from a hardware store, and kill 20 people.

There's loads of folk who don't understand the makeup of the Mashriq fighters. Let me give an outlook, there are 6 different kinds:

1. Conscripts.
2. Those who think that the Mashriq is their best hope against the Shia.
3. Those who think that the Mashriq is their both hope against foreign powers (Iran (fear from the 1980s)), America, and friends.
4. Recruits who actually believe in the ideology.
5. Foreign fighters.
6. Founders who were originally part of The Base in Iraq.

Only the last 3 are pretty dangerous visiting another country. I put it in order of biggest category to smallest. That's a huge portion of the Mashriq taken out - definitely the majority. As for the rest, the small problem that remains, that'll all be taken care of by the Maxwell Spread.

I am much more interested in the events going on in Europe, as the middle east always had and always will have wars. The paradoxical in defending the actions of immigrants, that is the epitome of ethnocentric behaviour, is perplexing to me. Schengen is ridiculing EU as a whole, displaying the lacking will to act, as nobody wants to pay the bill. Those that accepts refugees, does so with blinks as all they see is cheap labour, not the massive cultural differences.

I fear that all of these recent events (Paris, Cologne, anywhere in Sweden, etc.) will be the drop of water that makes the glass flow over, and either cause a collapse of the European Union, or some kind of uprising caused by the disagreements between the average voter, and the leftist power elite of most modern West and North European societies.

D as in Dumbass, can you please use real words and writing, since I found no point to either paragraph. Live up to your name, eh?

I won't talk about the success/fail of the EU here, this is strictly about Syria, so moving on.

There is no reason for them to come to Europe. A variety of international laws ensures that they never have to leave again once they're here, and that's bad for both Europe and the middle east, as this brain drain will have a longsighted negative impact on Syria, and the other countries of origin.

Quite obviously, there is reason: War. Even if you didn't know the reason, you'd know that there was one by them all coming in the first place, willingly. International laws are broken all the time, as long as you are in NATO, it'll be fine to break some. Even if some are truly very proudly Muslim, they'll go back to live amongst the Muslims. You're pretty vague about "bad", but you specifically say brain drain in Syria. The Syrian "brains", as human, earn the right to move away from their country. Anything else, especially in this situation, is a colossal cagefight. And it's not like brains are a depletable resource. It's like a famine. Bad, but almost always recoverable, and if done right, fast.

Which words did you not understand? I would happily help you look them up in a dictionary. My point of those two paragraphs was to portray my personal view on the main issues of the current crisis.


War is obviously a reason for them to leave Syria, or at least the war plagued parts. However it is not a reason for them to come to Europe specifically. They should be helped in refugee camps in neighboring states (I'm not sure about the English term, so this will have to do) with funding from European countries. This is already happening, but it should happen on a bigger scale, and in an organized and humanitarian way, with way more funding.

---

Even if some are truly very proudly Muslim, they'll go back to live among the Muslims.

You'd be surprised how free healthcare, free money, and the possibility to live among people that share your culture in ghettos, makes people willing to stay.

---

You're pretty vague about "bad"

Please allow me to specify then.

There are lots of reasons to avoid immigration to Europe. From an economical point of view, it's a lot cheaper to give a refugee the same care in a neighboring state, than it is to do it in Europe. Culturally it is also a bad match; especially in Scandinavia as our feminine culture is completely opposite to their masculine.* This difference becomes apparent in cultural clashes, most recently the Swedish social worker that was stabbed to death in the Asylum center she worked in. From a European perspective there's an obvious pro, and an obvious con. The pro is cheap labour, and with Germany's and Sweden's future decrease in their active workforce, they are (Read: were) eager to accommodate this immigrant influx. The obvious con is the strain that this crisis has put on the relations between the member states.

---

The Syrian "brains", as human, earn the right to move away from their country.

Do they earn the right to do so by illegally crossing multiple borders of safe countries, aiming for the most financially beneficial countries? Obviously I've made my own opinion clear, but I would like yours. Furthermore, these 'brains', or as I prefer: Intellectuals, could help rebuild post-war Syria.

---

And it's not like brains are a depletable resource.

Obviously not. But who should then teach these 'empty' brains, once the conflict is over?

1 - We could send teachers and translators, and it would be awfully expensive, and probably not very effective.
2 - We could let the radical teach; which is probably what's going to happen.
3 - We could limit the brain drain, and have all the human resources ready whenever.

Besides, in Europe a large percentage of these immigrants will either be unemployed, or employed in manual labour jobs. There will be exceptions to this rule, but overall that's how it will be.

---

Way to call me out on my name, after you've just implicitly concluded, that your oversimplified categorisations 1 to 3 are not a danger to other countries. I could expand on that, but if you think long and hard about it, I'm sure you can figure out why men armed with weapons are a danger to countries they visit, while their families are under the influence of this extremist group.

* Hofstede's cultural dimensions - You can check it out here: http://geert-hofstede.com/sweden.html

Which words did you not understand? I would happily help you look them up in a dictionary. My point of those two paragraphs was to portray my personal view on the main issues of the current crisis.

Muscles don't work without ligaments.

However it is not a reason for them to come to Europe specifically. They should be helped in refugee camps in neighboring states (I'm not sure about the English term, so this will have to do) with funding from European countries. This is already happening, but it should happen on a bigger scale, and in an organized and humanitarian way, with way more funding.

The Gulf States aren't accepting any migrants, and they should, but they aren't. Jordan is already overflowing, with 20% its population now Syrian refugees, and it is not getting enough help, and Turkey could do better, though it seems to me like it's doing far better than EU. The UN humanitarian fund grant Syrians in Jordan is what, 30 or 40% of what was promised?

And why does geography matter? Obviously practically, it's easiest to get there, but otherwise?

You'd be surprised how free healthcare, free money, and the possibility to live among people that share your culture in ghettos, makes people willing to stay.

Well, in my opinion, the welfare system in Europe should be greatly lowered, but anyhow, it's there, but the proud Muslims who find a "ghetto", well, there will be a foreign community. They dissolve, just slower (think sugarcube in water ag. sugar dust in water). So what? In the Ukrainian SW panhandle, ethnic Ukrainians are the majority by far, but there are several foreign towns, Albanians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Gagauz. I don't think the Ukrainian culture is somehow getting infested with Balkan culture.

From an economical point of view, it's a lot cheaper to give a refugee the same care in a neighboring state, than it is to do it in Europe.

Maybe, but can and will the other countries give that care?

Culturally it is also a bad match; especially in Scandinavia as our feminine culture is completely opposite to their masculine.

Culturally, it's a diverse match. Just since Arabic culture is obviously different from Swedish culture doesn't mean anything. The Syrians probably had to adapt their outlooks due to their situation, and there's no grounds why it shouldn't happen again.

This difference becomes apparent in cultural clashes, most recently the Swedish social worker that was stabbed to death in the Asylum center she worked in.

1 murder? That's all you've to say for cultural clashes? And this isn't culture, as I say before - it's banditry.

From a European perspective there's an obvious pro, and an obvious con. The pro is cheap labour, and with Germany's and Sweden's future decrease in their active workforce, they are (Read: were) eager to accommodate this immigrant influx.

And not, y'know, shriveling up to a stick with old folk and no new folk getting made.

Do they earn the right to do so by illegally crossing multiple borders of safe countries, aiming for the most financially beneficial countries?

It doesn't matter where they go, but they earn to go.

Furthermore, these 'brains', or as I prefer: Intellectuals, could help rebuild post-war Syria.

Well, the war's not over, and it's not going to be for a very long while.

Obviously not. But who should then teach these 'empty' brains, once the conflict is over?

1 - We could send teachers and translators, and it would be awfully expensive, and probably not very effective.
2 - We could let the radical teach; which is probably what's going to happen.
3 - We could limit the brain drain, and have all the human resources ready whenever.

Besides, in Europe a large percentage of these immigrants will either be unemployed, or employed in manual labour jobs. There will be exceptions to this rule, but overall that's how it will be.

It depends on how the conflict ends. If it ends with the Syrian government "winning", there's not going to be enough money to pay anything, definitely not these "intellectauax" or "brains" aren't going to want to work there. And 3 is not a humane choice. Country be damned, they're all evil anyway, but a fellow, this is who needs to be cared about.

Besides, in Europe a large percentage of these immigrants will either be unemployed, or employed in manual labour jobs. There will be exceptions to this rule, but overall that's how it will be.

So?

that your oversimplified categorisations 1 to 3 are not a danger to other countries. I could expand on that, but if you think long and hard about it, I'm sure you can figure out why men armed with weapons are a danger to countries they visit, while their families are under the influence of this extremist group. I could expand on that, but if you think long and hard about it, I'm sure you can figure out why men armed with weapons are a danger to countries they visit, while their families are under the influence of this extremist group.

Even assuming that their whole family was captured and not killed, and the family tie was known, there still are going to be at least 1/4 who can't bring themselves to that sacrifice. So "expand" on that.

Xapy, what is "the Maxwell Spread"? Googled it and found nothing related to this discussion, so I'm at a loss. (Also, I haven't read this whole thread, so I may have missed it.)