The following video from WEare138 Productions shows an American soldier interviewing several migrants outside an asylum center in Denmark. The three men — from Iraq and Syria — left their families behind to seek asylum in Denmark. The soldier asks them whether they would be willing to return to their homelands to fight alongside the Americans against the Islamic State.
Not only are these men categorically unwilling to fight for their countries, they appear baffled by the question itself. Presumably waging jihad for the sake of Allah and being martyred make sense to them, and they probably understand the motive of a mercenary who goes to war for money. But fighting for patriotic reasons seems to be an alien concept — defending their freedom or their homeland is simply inconceivable. Let the Americans do it!
Ya’ think we should bring this matter up to the 20 million illegal aliens from south of de’ border that inhabit our welfare rolls ??
I’ll bet they think differently when the time comes for us to tell them to leave our countries and go home.
Everyone who leaves his family behind in these places is either a liar or a *** (insert preferred insult).
In any case, such lowlifes should have no place in our societies and they don`t earn our help or compassion.
The asylum center in this town in Denmark, (Sønderborg), is the old military base which has a long and rich history of producing fine NGO’s before that education was moved to Varde’s base. Now it’s a place for raping muslim hordes.
Remember that danish girl who used pepper spray in self-defense but got a fine? That’s the same town. My town. Some discotheques and bars felt the blow after the military base was shut down, and after they started taking in muslims these nighttime businesses have also felt the pain thereof with muslims grooming on the dancefloor. One club actually has a policy now saying that you have to speak either danish, english or german fluently.
Grooming?
By modern definition, “grooming” consists of approaching (typically underage Caucasian) girls for the purpose of recruiting them into prostitution that usually involves hard drugs, sexual slavery, and constant gang rapes.
See: “Easy Meat”
Rotherham child sex gang shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ in court as they are jailed for 80 years for abusing girls, including one who became pregnant at just 12, after being groomed with alcohol and drugs
It’s far from certain that the first two guys understand most of/much of what the soldier is saying and asking. He is using quite complex language; their English is very or extremely basic. (This probably goes for not only their speech but their comprehension.) Their reply of “yeah, yeah”/”yes, yes” is not quite the same as “I have understood and agree with that”.
In English, the question “Don’t you agree that ………..?” could be answered, depending on the native language of the speaker, as “No (I don’t agree)” or “Yes (I don’t agree)”. To be sure about what these two guys are saying, let’s find a trustworthy interpreter and do a re-run.
Agreed, I don’t think they understood much of what was being said.
That was also my thought – although I suspect that even with a translator their responses would be the same. But the interviews as they stand aren’t persuasive for the reason you and Joe Crebo have given.
Let’s take a “neutral example” of language.
“You’re not hungry, then?”
A native English speaker, if not hungry, says “No” (“No, I’m not hungry.”) A native speaker of Korean (among others, I believe) might well say (if not hungry and following the logic of the Korean language) “Yes” (meaning “Yes, that is correct, I’m not hungry.”)
The soldier was asking questions along the lines of “Don’t you……?” or “So it’s …………?” Quite complex stuff! I found this, below, though I don’t go along with all of it. “Don’t you/Didn’t you, for example, is not a neutral question but includes the speaker’s expected/desired response.
In colloquial Arabic, “Didn’t you buy a dress last week?” “,ما اشتريت فستان الأسبوع الماضي is also ambiguous and may render the following meanings:
i. It implies a neutral question about whether she bought the dress or not, replying with the truth-value of the situation, or is replying to the polarity used in the question. The answer would be either “Yes” or “no”, or an echo answer: “Yes I bought it” or “No I
didn’t buy it”.
ii. It implies a confirmation question to which the reply is “yes” only.
iii. It implies a confirmation question to which the reply is “no” only.
iv. It implies disapproval: “Didn’t you buy a dress last week? Why do you want to buy another dress?
v. It implies an exclamation: Wow! You have you bought a new dress, although you bought one last week! What a surprise!
vi. It implies a rebuke: Why do you want waste money on another dress? Didn’t you by a dress last week?
Anyway, it’s a minefield! Those first two guys in the video were keen to be pleasant and friendly but I doubt they understood much of what the soldier was saying. Their response was to smile and mutter “Yeah, yeah.”
If one needs to fight best to strike at the root
So the root of the problems in Syria and Iraq are in Syria and Iraq ??
I don’t think so soldier boy, I think the root
of the problem is to be found in Washington
Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London, Ankara,
Tel Aviv, Riyad, Doha.
I understand what soldier boy tries to point out [rudeness redacted]
The solution to the presence of Muhammadism is the absence of Muhammadism.
I insist upon its mass expulsion. Nothing less is acceptable.
Bulls eye!
“The solution to the presence of Muhammadism is the absence of Muhammadism.”
As many others have said (long) before me:
“The tipping point shall come when living with Islam is more trouble than living without Islam.”
Few more succinct definitions exist.
PS: Please reconsider using the word “solution” in connection with such problem solving. It invites the Anti-Fascists to make comparisons with the wickedness of that Austrian Corporal.
Be assured that I detest Political Correctness, but know that (even more) I dislike giving the slightest toehold to those that refuse to recognize why Islam is the greatest threat of all to modern civilization.
Solution is not the same as The Final Solution. Furthermore we should cease to have our language policed by so-called Antifascists. Let’s stop censoring ourselves for fear of what the red SA might or might not do. They find a pretext enyway.
Sorry, *anyway*
“Solution is not the same as The Final Solution.”
Not in the eyes of the Antifa thugs. Of course, you are absolutely right. However, none of that changes their strategy of tarring you with even the most scant word association.
The less able they are able to distract or deflect people from taking your proper meaning, the more powerful your points are.
Again, I totally loathe self-censorship, but we are in a “war of words” (soon to go kinetic), and it is imperative to change the minds of as many people as possible before the real fighting starts. Short-circuiting contrived counter-arguments and perceived slights (real or otherwise) is a vital tool in quashing the role that disingenuous Liberals play in protecting or advancing Islam.
The west has GOT to stop fighting moslem wars! It will be bad enough just trying to get the moslems out of our countries–if we ever acquire the intestinal fortitude and common sense to do so.
I believe you meant testicular fortitude, but this might also work — fight stench with stench 😉
I prefer the term, “scrotal endowment”.
Carry on.
Either.
“The west has GOT to stop fighting moslem wars!”
While I certainly agree with you, what happens to American (and Western) interests once we leave the field free to Russia and China?
Moscow and Beijing would like nothing more than having an unfettered ability to be puppet-masters in the Middle East.
For one thing, I very much doubt that Russia and China would treat the islamic trash with such easy-going benevolence, but also, the moslems don’t see themselves as puppets. (Certainly not in Europe, where they are running free, as you know)
“For one thing, I very much doubt that Russia and China would treat the islamic trash with such easy-going benevolence,”
None of which changes the fact that enemies of the West would gain much greater influence in the Mid-East oil patch. Admittedly, seeing Islam being given a good knocking about would be more than a little gratifying. That said, I would much prefer that a less gentle America do that knocking about.
“…but also, the moslems don’t see themselves as puppets.”
They also do not see themselves as barbaric, tyrannous theocrats who are throwbacks to the iron age. None of which changes the fact that they are all of the above.
Not even nuclear-armed Pakistan demonstrates more than a rudimentary comprehension of the Great Game. Islam’s only finesse is an understanding that crude methods such as its own require centuries to implement.
A young nation like the United States has little reckoning of such a long game and is routinely duped by Islam’s institutionalized deceit and treachery. All of which points towards a rather abrupt alteration of the Middle East’s political or geographical landscape at some future point.
“…..has little reckoning of such a long game and is routinely duped by islam’s inst. deceit and treachery”.
That’s it right there, the west is terminally guileless!
In this case, when I say ‘west’ I really mean America, for Europe is different; no one could be that stupid– their leaders know damned well what they are exposing their people to.
I really hope your ‘abrupt alteration’ happens, and soon.
“That’s it right there, the west is terminally guileless!”
Thank you for seeing such a profound agreement within our definitions. This Western naïveté is insanely unhealthy … if only for the Islamic world.
Strange as it may seem, any continued Muslim dependence upon such witless ignorance by Western powers only hastens the day when Islam simply disappears.
“I really hope your ‘abrupt alteration’ happens, and soon.”
And so do I. In all sincerity … the longer this “alteration” process takes, the more likely it is that whatever warfare happens will shift from conventional over to (emphatically) “unconventional” weapons.
Please ask yourself this one final question:
Which nations hold the largest arsenals of “unconventional weapons”?