At the time of this writing there are 10s of thousands of refugees pouring into Europe from Syria and Afghanistan. World leaders are scratching their collective heads in what to do with them. In the meantime, trains are taking them to the boarders of Austria and Germany where they will probably be housed and given the necessities of life.
As of September 4, thousands of them have to walk 30 kilometres to a destination where they hope to be on a train to their final destination; children, women and men of all ages are making the long trek.
“But what is the solution?”
So far the solution has been for each EU nation to house more refugees; even little Iceland has offered to take them in. Then, some people have gone one step further in personally taking in a family. This idea was brought forth in little Austria, where some of the citizens thought that was a good idea. From what I read there has been 11,000 families that have taken in refugees.
“But is that the solution?”
The solition is one that would not be politically correct, and, as such will not be used. But if the EU is going to be serious in handling this refugee crises, they will have to do what would be called “politically incorrect.”
We have to look at history and see what the nations did when there was war in a country – any type of war. It could be a civil war, a war from an invading nation – what did they do? Throughout history, and that includes European and American history, when there was a war, there was not refugees flooding to other countries looking for a safe place to live and be given accomodations, food and clothing. Each citizen of a war-torn nation remained in their country and survived and fought the best they could.
When the Normans invaded England, the English didn’t call on Germany to help; they didn’t flee to another country. When there was the terrible War Between the States (Civil War) in American from 1861-65, no Americans fled the country. The Southerns didn’t flee to Mexico, although it was close. The Northerns didn’t flee to Canada. What happened? They all tried to live and deal with the situation as it was. There were thousands and thousands of people without homes in the South.
“But we are more civilized now?” Really, just read any newspaper and you’ll read of horrible crimes. No, we are more baseless now.
So, what will the result of this “humane” treatment lead to? It will be just like what the mass immigration has done to many nations in the past 50 years – they’ll be more crime, more poverty, more taxes, more hatred (because different people want the country to be run by “their cultural ways.” In short, they’ll be more race hatred.
I feel sorry for the people who had to flee their home and their country and these people should be helped – but there’s a right way and a wrong way. By taking in all these Syrians, for example, the burden of cost will be high for the host country. Such costs include: housing them, giving them money to buy the essentials of life, training them for jobs (if there are any), teaching them the language of their host country. There will be the added cost of medical care as many of them come with disease. Then, there is the criminal elements within these thousands of refugees – after all, they will flee, too. And since those that are criminals, know that it will be easier to make a life of crime from a rich nation than a war-torn nation. There will be innocent people robbed, mugged and raped. Then, when the criminals are caught, there is the cost of housing them in prision. So, what the EU is doing now is no solution.
Since these refugees – of whatever country, including those who have been flooding into Europe from the northern African countries – are here, what should we do with them? The best thing is, to give them the cloths, essentials to start a new life AND guns and ammuntion. Take them to their respective boarders, have the men led the way, the women and children behind, and tell them to RETAKE THEIR COUTNRY! Win, lose or draw, these people will be back in their own country.
You think this is wrong, barbaric? Well, if it was, why wasn’t the so-called “barbaric” nations of the past do this? You don’t think sending people back with guns to retake their country was ever done before? Think again. Not only was it done but it was done in modern times. Before I go on to tell you this bit of history, let me say first, that it didn’t work ONLY because there were traitors within the nation that prevented it.
The nation that sent refugees back was America and the President who did that was John F. Kennedy; it was called the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Back when Castro and his Communists had a bloody take over of Cuba, there were thousands who fleed and most of them went to Florida. These were people who loved their country and loved freedom. Well, the plans were that they were trained in fighting and to be taken on naval ships, droped off with the cases of guns and ammuntion. They were to be given naval support until they secured the beach head (just like Marines are given). What happened?
Well, there were Communist traitors in the State Department and Pentagon. They couldn’t refuse the President’s order so they devised a plan where it didn’t work. They had weapons in crates, with ammunition in other crates. You never let troups go on the beaches without weapons and ammo in hand. So, now the Cubans had to unpack their weapons, then find the ammo boxes. These ammo boxes were not the right caliber for the rifles. On top of that, the US naval ships did not give support at all – there was no firing from their guns. The so-called brave anti-Christ Communists were on the hills over looking the beach and had children lined up in front of them while they were shooting their guns behind them. This was to make sure there was no firing, as they knew that these Cubans had Christian morals and would not shoot a children.
Thus, thousands of Cuban patriots were murdered by the State Department of the United States. This is exactly what the Communists in Cuba wanted and in America – the killing of those who would resist the Red murderers.
Don’t miss the principle there. This invasion would have worked IF there was no treason in the upper ranks of the US military. Had President Kennedy’s orders been fufilled, Communism would have been a short lived dark page in their history and Castro and his cronies would have been rotting in their mass grave somewhere.
Think of this, miltiary support, men given the guns to fight (with the training they received) the ISIS would have been a thing of the past. But don’t expect this plan to be used, and the reason why is that we have too many anti-Christ Communists in power throughout Europe and America, so they will NOT be doing anything that would get themselves out of power. So, when the European nations complain they are only experiencing “the cause and effect” of their actions. They will get more of the same. The people don’t understand this but their leaders are planning choas abroad (in Syria and elsewhere) and at home (with the immigration problem).
There is a solution but it won’t be implimented with the same leaders in power.
If the EU leaders want to look at the root cause of the problem, they have to look no further than the corrupt political and military leadership in America and put the blame on them. When you look at the radical Islamic group in Syria and Afganistan, for example, you see all these modern weapons, with millions of rounds of ammunition, in addtion to trucks to transport this, and, I presume the fuel and parts for these trucks and weapons. Where did they get that from? It was left there my the US military. This is a criminal act and no one is looking at it. Nearly everyone can’t see that this is the cause.
During any war, if you win you take your weapons and supplies with you. If you are retreating you take your weapons with you, if you don’t have time to take your equipment you destroy what you have. Only when you don’t have time to destroy what you can’t take do you leave it behind. It’s common military proceedure. Yes, there are times when the enemy over runs you and you don’t have time to either take with you what you have or destroy what you have. But you do what you can. In the case with the US and the UK being in Afganistan and Iraq, they should have taken what they had when they pulled out. When you turn over the weapons to a country with a new leadership, you don’t give them your best and a lot of it. Did the Allies allow the Germans to keep their planes and V2 rockets? No. So, why did we do this in Iraq, for example? Because it was treason on the part of the US.
The US left in its wake a government in Iraq that was weak. So, it was just a matter of time before the militant elements of the Muslims took over. When you have a nation of many factions and even if one or two of them are fanatical, you need a strong leader. That is why when there was a strong leader in some of these Muslim states there was peace; they even had tourists, but not any more.
Now, with the ISIS having all of these weapons, it’s easy for them to invade other countries.
Gun ownership should be the mainstray of every nation. I wonder if Europeans are waking up and see what happens to a people when they don’t own guns? Or when citizens don’t own guns of the “assult” type, such as automatic weapons of any kind – are they waking up? Do they understand why Americans hold on to their guns?
I don’t know what the gun ownership laws are of some of these countries in the Middle East, but when you don’t own guns, or if the guns you do own are little “pea shooters,” it’s easy for the enemy (domestic or foreign) to come in and take over. This is what happened in Syria. If the average Syrian own guns like they do in Switzerland, the radical arm of Islam would not be able to get a strong hold. In Switzerland, whatever weapon you used in the military, you got to keep it and take it home when you are discharged. You are also required to go out to a shooting range twice a year to keep up your marksmanship, you also have ammuntion kept at home. What this does, as history has shown, that it safe guards the nation from being attacked.
Had Syrians had their semi and automatic weapons and even machine guns, the ISIS wouldn’t stand a chance. The reason why is, that they would have to fight against the whole population and they would also be fighting people who knew the terrain.
Back to my solution would be to train them in whatever country they are in and give them the heavy duty weapons that the ISIS has and send them back. Sure, this would cost money but it would be less than putting their whole family on welfare. The cost could be less than even one year on welfare in their host country. Plus, these people would be living among their own kind, in their own country, with their own culture and speaking their own language once the war was won.
Personally housing refugees is something that got started recently in Austria with 11,000 (that I read) who are putting up these newly arrived refugees. Iceland is now taking up this idea and it’s just a matter of time before other nations do so. This is not a solution, as there are still foreigners in your country. Now, this is going one without tax credits or cash handouts from the government. But I expect in a short time incentives will be given to those people who have room to house them. While this will eliminate the immedate housing needs for the people, there will be problems heading down the road.
Keep in mind, I feel sorry for those who are without a home and in a strange land, and with winter coming soon. So, with housing, food and clothing is a good thing for them. But a solution should be found; the citizens of Austria, for example, should see that what they are doing is only a temperarily solution. If they think it’s a permenate one, it’s not, as there will be more refugees than the country can handle. Think about this, how does a Chiristian family and a Muslim family live together? What about the guest family do not clean up after themselves? What about different family lifestyles that are forced on the host family. What about the dividing of labour in doing house and garden work? Sure, in the beginning everything would be fine, after all “a new broom sweeps clean” but after awhile there will be friction living together. Heck, you have this with In-Laws, or just a room mate of your own kind living with you. When you add a different culture, mindset and religion you are asking for trouble. Thus, the people who are putting others up should see that this is just a temperary solution.
Those who take in the refugees are probably middle class citizens and I’m sure many of them are also Christian middle class. However, I bet there is not one rich person that has done this. There is no proof at this time but I’m sure if a survey was done it would be interesting. What we do know is that the state of Israel has not taken in any Syria refugees! Why don’t they? Syria is a lot closer to Israel than Hugary, Austria and Germany. Since the country isn’t taking any in, you can be sure that no Jew – middle class or poor – are taking the Syrian refugees in. In fact, the Syrian people probably know that it would be a waste of time to go to the boarder of Israel – they would be told to leave.
Also, there is anohter group that has not gone to Israel and that is ISIS. Why haven’t they? After all, it’s the only non-Muslim state in that area. The reason why is, that ISIS knows that it’s the Jews (and the US) that allows them to invade other countries and it is Isael where they are most likely getting support of one kind or another. After all, it’s to the Jews benefit that all neighboring states are weakened and destroyed, so why not let others do their fighting.
Thus, this is the only way to solve this problem, but since these age-old methods will not be used, we will wait on Yeshua the Christ to come again. We read in Revelation that the people will go back to their own nation – so, there will be separation once again. How will it happen? Probably by God putting a natural instinct in them to return – each person to their respective homeland.
Copyright © 2015 ChristianIdentityChurch.Wordpress.com