Slovakian Prime Minister warns country will stop Muslim refugees from entering

First topic message reminder :

Slovakia’s Prime Minister has warned that the country will fight against immigration from Muslim countries to prevent attacks such as the Paris shooting and Cologne sexual assaults, it has been reported.
Prime Minister Robert Fico made the comments while declaring that multi-culturalism is “a fiction.”
He told reporters that he would resist the European Commission’s plan for mandatory quotas to share 120,000 asylum seekers among the EU’s member states. He said: “Not only are we refusing mandatory quotas, we will never make a voluntary decision that would lead to formation of a united Muslim community in Slovakia. 
“Multi-culturalism is a fiction. Once you let migrants in, you can face such problems”, he said referring to the Paris shootings in November and the recent allegations of mass sexual assaults in Cologne.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/slovakia-wants-to-stop-Muslim-migrants-from-entering-a6803811.html

Really Didge, you talk a lot about nations and groups having the right to govern themselves, but you appear to be going against your own principles now.

Tommy Monk wrote:The EU was supposed to be about trade between countries... not control of them!!!


The answer is simple... return all the Africans to the African union to deal with and mid eastern to the Arab league to deal with.

It's now all about who holds the moral highground rather than trade. Merkel caused this problem with her stupid actions.

Raggamuffin wrote:Really Didge, you talk a lot about nations and groups having the right to govern themselves, but you appear to be going against your own principles now.

Yes I am all for nations having self determination, does that mean I support then Saudi excuting people because of their beliefs?
No, hence I will be fundementally against that, just as I would be with a nation being backwards, by discrminating.
So spare me any nonsense on principles, that is a very poor deflection

nations can have self determination...as long as they do as they are told eh didge?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Really Didge, you talk a lot about nations and groups having the right to govern themselves, but you appear to be going against your own principles now.

Yes I am all for nations having self determination, does that mean I support then Saudi excuting people because of their beliefs?
No, hence I will be fundementally against that, just as I would be with a nation being backwards, by discrminating.
So spare me any nonsense on principles, that is a very poor deflection

So you think they should have self determination as long as they can't act in their own best interests, and are forced to do what they don't want to do when it suits you. I see.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Yes I am all for nations having self determination, does that mean I support then Saudi excuting people because of their beliefs?
No, hence I will be fundementally against that, just as I would be with a nation being backwards, by discrminating.
So spare me any nonsense on principles, that is a very poor deflection

So you think they should have self determination as long as they can't act in their own best interests, and are forced to do what they don't want to do when it suits you. I see.

Let me dumb this down for you.
I believe in self determination for a set of people.
That is a belief that believes people should be able to govern themselves
That does not mean I will not then oppose policies a nation may have, again a different view
However I will stand against any views that nation has that goes against the well being and equality of others.
Now can you see the difference in views here?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you think they should have self determination as long as they can't act in their own best interests, and are forced to do what they don't want to do when it suits you. I see.

Let me dumb this down for you.
I believe in self determination for a set of people.
That is a belief that believes people should be able to govern themselves
That does not mean I will not then oppose policies a nation may have, again a different view
However I will stand against any views that nation has that goes against the well being and equality of others.
Now can you see the difference in views here?

You've just confirmed what I said. You only think they should have self determination if they go along with what you want.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Let me dumb this down for you.
I believe in self determination for a set of people.
That is a belief that believes people should be able to govern themselves
That does not mean I will not then oppose policies a nation may have, again a different view
However I will stand against any views that nation has that goes against the well being and equality of others.
Now can you see the difference in views here?

You've just confirmed what I said. You only think they should have self determination if they go along with what you want.

Wrong.
You still cannot grasp this.
I back the right for people to govern themselves.
That does not mean I back every policy they have
Do you understand that?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You've just confirmed what I said. You only think they should have self determination if they go along with what you want.

Wrong.
You still cannot grasp this.
I back the right for people to govern themselves.
That does not mean I back every policy they have
Do you understand that?

But you don't think that Slovakia should have the right to make its own decisions - that's the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Wrong.
You still cannot grasp this.
I back the right for people to govern themselves.
That does not mean I back every policy they have
Do you understand that?

But you don't think that Slovakia should have the right to make its own decisions - that's the point.

OMG do you understand I back the right to govern?
Lets go through this one point at a time.
This means I back any nation to have self determination.
That does not mean I then agree with every policy they have
Are you going to tell me you back self determination and agree the Nazis had a right to exterminate the Jews?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But you don't think that Slovakia should have the right to make its own decisions - that's the point.

OMG do you understand I back the right to govern?
Lets go through this one point at a time.
This means I back any nation to have self determination.
That does not mean I then agree with every policy they have
Are you going to tell me you back self determination and agree the Nazis had a right to exterminate the Jews?

But you don't back their right to govern how they see fit. Either you back their right to self determination or you don't. Which is it?

Every time you post on this issue, you just confirm what I said in the first place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


OMG do you understand I back the right to govern?
Lets go through this one point at a time.
This means I back any nation to have self determination.
That does not mean I then agree with every policy they have
Are you going to tell me you back self determination and agree the Nazis had a right to exterminate the Jews?

But you don't back their right to govern how they see fit. Either you back their right to self determination or you don't. Which is it?

Every time you post on this issue, you just confirm what I said in the first place.

Wrong again
I back their right to self determination to govern themselves.
I do not have to then agree with policies they have
They are also part of the EU and have to abide by these laws, so its not just about themselves in this instance either.

To back the right to govern, means I back the right for any people to govern, it does not mean you then have to agree with their policies. You fail to grasp what the right to means

Anyway, if they stick to their guns, and maybe they're forced to leave the EU, that will open the floodgates IMO, and the EU will change a great deal. They have enough support in other countries for that to happen.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But you don't back their right to govern how they see fit. Either you back their right to self determination or you don't. Which is it?

Every time you post on this issue, you just confirm what I said in the first place.

Wrong again
I back their right to self determination to govern themselves.
I do not have to then agree with policies they have
They are also part of the EU and have to abide by these laws, so its not just about themselves in this instance either.

To back the right to govern, means I back the right for any people to govern, it does not mean you then have to agree with their policies. You fail to grasp what the right to means

Your argument has failed as usual, so move on. Just accept that some nations have different ideas as to what they want, and they don't want other countries telling them what to do all the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if they stick to their guns, and maybe they're forced to leave the EU, that will open the floodgates IMO, and the EU will change a great deal. They have enough support in other countries for that to happen.

Like I say, they will end up being far worse off, as they are part of the EU and any country wishing to go back to 19th century attitudes should have the distain of any decent person

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Wrong again
I back their right to self determination to govern themselves.
I do not have to then agree with policies they have
They are also part of the EU and have to abide by these laws, so its not just about themselves in this instance either.

To back the right to govern, means I back the right for any people to govern, it does not mean you then have to agree with their policies. You fail to grasp what the right to means

Your argument has failed as usual, so move on. Just accept that some nations have different ideas as to what they want, and they don't want other countries telling them what to do all the time.

No you simply cannot understand context which is blatantly obvious
Again, I back the right

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if they stick to their guns, and maybe they're forced to leave the EU, that will open the floodgates IMO, and the EU will change a great deal. They have enough support in other countries for that to happen.

Like I say, they will end up being far worse off, as they are part of the EU and any country wishing to go back to 19th century attitudes should have the distain of any decent person

I don't think it will be that simple. Look at what happens when one country rebels - others follow suit. For example, it happened with Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale of course, but it was pretty rapid once it all started.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Like I say, they will end up being far worse off, as they are part of the EU and any country wishing to go back to 19th century attitudes should have the distain of any decent person

I don't think it will be that simple. Look at what happens when one country rebels - others follow suit. For example, it happened with Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale of course, but it was pretty rapid once it all started.

That was completely different as nations within this federation wanted independence. Where Serbia whipped up hatred on to other nations like Croatia. If any of the countries you listed left the EU it would be to the bvenefit of the rest, as we would then not have an influx of Eastern Europeans, where many here already would have to go back. So you reaklly need to think outside the box of the implications of what would happen if they did leave

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Your argument has failed as usual, so move on. Just accept that some nations have different ideas as to what they want, and they don't want other countries telling them what to do all the time.

No you simply cannot understand context which is blatantly obvious
Again, I back the right

and it is at this point didge, that you dissapear in a puff of smoke as the paradox you have created implodes in on you...

you back the right to self determination...

yet you subvert that right by suggesting that other nations have the right to act in a way that forces a change in the will of that nation??

ahh..the complexity of "international relationships"

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it will be that simple. Look at what happens when one country rebels - others follow suit. For example, it happened with Yugoslavia, on a smaller scale of course, but it was pretty rapid once it all started.

That was completely different as nations within this federation wanted independence. Where Serbia whipped up hatred on to other nations like Croatia. If any of the countries you listed left the EU it would be to the bvenefit of the rest, as we would then not have an influx of Eastern Europeans, where many here already would have to go back. So you reaklly need to think outside the box of the implications of what would happen if they did leave

It wasn't that different. It started with Slovenia, and the floodgates opened.

If countries are forced to do what they don't want to do, they will blame the Germans, and you know how that ended before ...

You're the one who needs to think outside the box. Do you really think that one little country will leave and that will be it? They will have support in other countries - there is already unrest in several countries because of this problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


That was completely different as nations within this federation wanted independence. Where Serbia whipped up hatred on to other nations like Croatia. If any of the countries you listed left the EU it would be to the bvenefit of the rest, as we would then not have an influx of Eastern Europeans, where many here already would have to go back. So you reaklly need to think outside the box of the implications of what would happen if they did leave

It wasn't that different. It started with Slovenia, and the floodgates opened.

If countries are forced to do what they don't want to do, they will blame the Germans, and you know how that ended before ...

You're the one who needs to think outside the box. Do you really think that one little country will leave and that will be it? They will have support in other countries - there is already unrest in several countries because of this problem.

It was completely different.
How did what end before for blaming the Germans?
Again your list of countries would be in the better interest of the rest if they died leave, being as their economes are propped up by the bigger powers. Again what you fail to grasp is the consequential actions that could and would no doubt occur from such a move

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't that different. It started with Slovenia, and the floodgates opened.

If countries are forced to do what they don't want to do, they will blame the Germans, and you know how that ended before ...

You're the one who needs to think outside the box. Do you really think that one little country will leave and that will be it? They will have support in other countries - there is already unrest in several countries because of this problem.

It was completely different.
How did what end before for blaming the Germans?
Again your list of countries would be in the better interest of the rest if they died leave, being as their economes are propped up by the bigger powers. Again what you fail to grasp is the consequential actions that could and would no doubt occur from such a move

It wasn't different. One country decided they didn't want to kow-tow to the Serbs, and look what happened after that. If you want other examples, think about the fall of the Iron Curtain, think about the Arab Spring.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


It was completely different.
How did what end before for blaming the Germans?
Again your list of countries would be in the better interest of the rest if they died leave, being as their economes are propped up by the bigger powers. Again what you fail to grasp is the consequential actions that could and would no doubt occur from such a move

It wasn't different. One country decided they didn't want to kow-tow to the Serbs, and look what happened after that. If you want other examples, think about the fall of the Iron Curtain, think about the Arab Spring.

Wrong

I even posted about this whole conflict earlier.
That was bad blood going back centuries, for example the Serbs played off how the Croatians sided with Nazi Germany in WW2, of which the Croatians payed for dearly at the end of WW2 when they were sent on a death march by Tito.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't different. One country decided they didn't want to kow-tow to the Serbs, and look what happened after that. If you want other examples, think about the fall of the Iron Curtain, think about the Arab Spring.

Wrong

I even posted about this whole conflict earlier.
That was bad blood going back centuries, for example the Serbs played off how the Croatians sided with Nazi Germany in WW2, of which the Croatians payed for dearly at the end of WW2 when they were sent on a death march by Tito.

I'm right, but there's no point getting bogged down in detail. You fail to grasp that a small rebellion can lead to a much greater rebellion - it's how a lot of wars start.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Wrong

I even posted about this whole conflict earlier.
That was bad blood going back centuries, for example the Serbs played off how the Croatians sided with Nazi Germany in WW2, of which the Croatians payed for dearly at the end of WW2 when they were sent on a death march by Tito.

I'm right, but there's no point getting bogged down in detail. You fail to grasp that a small rebellion can lead to a much greater rebellion - it's how a lot of wars start.

Actually it shows how little you know about the history of the region and the conflicts that then occured.
What you fail to grasp is consquences and how this is much more about an election than it is anything else

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm right, but there's no point getting bogged down in detail. You fail to grasp that a small rebellion can lead to a much greater rebellion - it's how a lot of wars start.

Actually it shows how little you know about the history of the region and the conflicts that then occured.
What you fail to grasp is consquences and how this is much more about an election than it is anything else

We're not talking about ancient history, we're talking about the tendency for things to escalate once a small rebellion has occurred. Try to stick to the point.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Actually it shows how little you know about the history of the region and the conflicts that then occured.
What you fail to grasp is consquences and how this is much more about an election than it is anything else

We're not talking about ancient history, we're talking about the tendency for things to escalate once a small rebellion has occurred. Try to stick to the point.

the last century is not ancient history, that is history generally classed up until the end of the Roman Empire.
We are talking about how you cannot grasp consequences and how this has everything to do with an election coming up at the beginning of March

Putin must be laughing his head off at all these antics.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How else would you describe it? Slovakia don't want all those Muslim refugees, but they will be forced to take them unless they can win the court case.

If a nation wants to discriminate because of fear, that's up to them.

Every nation has to play a part in helping and they are not being asked to take in the amounts that other nations are doing. They are behaving like children to be honest, so no a nation should not discrminate based off a fear, that is wrong on every level, as when you open up the door to discrminate, then other areas become discriminated against.
We are living in the 21st century, not the 19th anymore

Aren't all decisions to refuse entry to potentially dangerous people and national security reasons based on totally valid 'fear' based reasons...!?


A govt doing what's best for their own people is totally right and admirable... more govts should be doing this...


It is a privilege to be allowed into another country... not a right... they have the right of refusal... and if you have been refused then you have the right to fuck off somewhere else!!!