backtoiam » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:53 pm wrote:omh wrote:
As I've said, the reality of weaponized migration is a complete non factor. The factor is, if we call them weapons, how will we come to view refugees/migrant in the future? As people needing help or as a threat to be neutralized? Classifying them as weapons dehumanizes them.
Respectfully, I don't understand the disconnect with this. Nobody here at this forum, far as I can tell, is attempting to exacerbate this unfortunate situation.
Some of us me, alice, slad, etc...are pointing out the fact that THERE IS an effort being made to weaponize the refugees and that is apparent (to me). Nobody in this forum is attempting to weaponize these people or incite such a thing, as far as I can see.
We are simply pointing out the fact that it is being done by the power elite. So whats the problem? We all agree that it is a horrible thing and that all involved will suffer.
We are simply pointing out that IT IS being done by the same cabal that bombed these poor souls into the stone age.
You're right, there is a big disconnect here. Allow me to put this another way.
What happens when there is a war?
You protect yourself from the weaponry and you destroy the means of war that the enemy attempts to unleash upon you.
What happens when the weaponry is migrants / refugees?
You protect yourself by rounding them up, keeping track of them, expelling them, building a wall to keep them out or otherwise exterminating them.
No one on this board may be exacerbating the situation. However as we've clearly been observing, there is a remarkable bias rising. In the U.S. Trump is calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. If you listen to his speech, he says that, "Mexico is sending us..." these rapists and murderers. As if, Mexico is waging war. And as punishment he will, "make them pay for a wall". Replace with Turkey or EU or "Zionists" in Europe and you have a more advanced situation. At some point the U.S. situation will advance to the "war" narrative. Mexico is waging "war" on the U.S. That's why an idea like, "Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe" is attractive to the right.
Political considerations are completely secondary, especially when half the time there is spurious proof of the political mechanizations- Turkey yes, Soros no. Primary considerations are the safety of those who are escaping violence and poverty.
As commentary on the OP, some are quick to point out that a conservative source originally postulates migration as weaponry. The choice of the word "weapon" is telling. It would be more accurate here (such as in the case of Turkey) to state that migrants/refugees are and have been used as "bargaining chips". The word use is deliberate. Refugees haven't been used as bargaining chips. They've been used as weapons. The difference is one is a victim, the other is a threat. We may think we are being objective by merely describing the situation that victimizes the refugees, but instead we are embracing the narrative that others will use to evil ends.