Canada Welcomes Syrian Refugees. But Is America to Blame for Syria's Disaster?


Late Thursday night Canada welcomed 163 Syrian refugees into the country, the first step in fulfilling its promise to receive 25,000 refugees by March. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was there to meet the first passengers off the plane saying, "You are home. You're safe at home now."

But could the U.S. have done something to prevent the refugee crisis to being with Michael Weiss, a senior editor at The Daily Beast and co-author of the New York Times bestseller, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, says yes. Weiss sat down with Reason TV in October to discuss U.S. involvement in the Syrian War, saying he believes the U.S. had options that could have prevented the refugee crisis from becoming the global fiasco it is today. 

"I can speak glibly about no-fly zones, but at this point I just understand this administration is never going to do anything to rescue the Syrian people or prevent Assad, Iran, and Russia from killing everybody they want to," he states. 

The interview was originally released on October 15, 2015:

NEXT: George Washington University Students Take A Stand For Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Canada. Fuck yeah!

    Did Zoolander welcome them barefoot and with James Taylor playing guitar in the background?

    1. Or Gordon Lightfoot.

      1. You better take care
        If I find you been creepin’
        ’round my back stair

        1. Sometimes I think it’s a sin
          When I feel like I’m winnin’ when I’m losin’ again

  2. But Is America to Blame for Syria’s Disaster?

    Pretty much, in conjunction with Asssd being a complete psychopath. Any more brain busters?

    1. Be fair. Obumbles and The Hildebeast are not America.

      1. It started a long time before that dynamic duo. They aren’t Murika, but they think they are.

      2. Pretty sure that fucking ISIS mess that spilled over is a direct result of the US’s epic Iraq fail. While one can make the argument that what’s happening in Syria isn’t the direct genesis of US meddling, it sure as hell escalated a great deal once those ISIS psychos started taking territory.

        1. No it wasn’t. ISIS was a shadow of itself when it got into Syria. That’s where it became strong, not Iraq.

          The Iraqi Kurds would not have been as strong in fighting ISIS without the liberation of Iraq. Thank goodness the US deposed Saddam.

          1. ISIS initially was Zarqawi-network leftovers re-animated in a similar political vacuum; it has metastasized into its own creature since, but that was the original tumor.

          2. Iraqi Kurds are strong enough to fight ISIS now, because reasons reasons Saddam gone derp.

  3. “I can speak glibly about no-fly zones, but at this point I just understand this administration is never going to do anything to rescue the Syrian people or prevent Assad, Iran, and Russia from killing everybody they want to,” he states.

    The Arab Spring would have come to Syria with or without the Iraq War. There would have been a civil war anyway–just like there was in Libya.

    It would have been much easier to help the rebels fight against Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah for their freedom if it hadn’t been for the U.S. led Iraq War. Surely the Arab Spring would have come to Iraq just as it did to Syria.

    I don’t see why the United States involving itself in Syria directly would accomplish anything better for the people of Syria than it did for the people of Iraq. ISIS would not be the threat it is today without our efforts in Iraq . . .

    I will say this, All the parties fighting in Syria, from Christian pro-Assad forces to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic State, and the Iranian Revolutionary Army, they all seem to have one thing in common: they all hate the United States. If there is one thing that might unite the people of Syria, it would be the United States showing up on the ground. That might unite them all–against us.

    Why bother when we could all just burn our wallets and shoot ourselves in the leg instead?

    1. Ken I don’t want American boots on the ground but there is no doubt we could have done more there.

      They have been allowed to transport oil by truck across the country to Turkey when it was well known they were doing it. . If Russian intelligence can document that I doubt we didn’t know it was going on.

      I’ve read that the excuse for allowing that was that the truck drivers are civilians.

      Whaaat ? They might not have on a uniform but they are ISIS .

      It’s just another case of the US military being sent in for the appearence of doing something only to have politicians tie one of their hands behind their back.

      1. If you want to rank the belligerents in Syria in terms of the long term threat they present to American security, Iran still belongs at the top of that list. Hezbollah is there at Iran’s behest. The pro-Assad forces are aligned with Iran. The Christians are largely pro-Assad.

        Stopping ISIS from selling oil may be the least of our problems in Syria, or the least of our problems might be the Al Qaeda in Syria, who are probably, more or less, aligned with Turkey.

        When Al Qaeda may be the least of your problems, you want to steer clear of that shit hole.

        Certainly, the terrorist attack in San Bernardino would have happened regardless of how invested we were in Syria.

        1. I don’t disagree with any of your analysis. You’ve obviously studied the issue more than me.

          I still see no reason, with as many bombs as we are dropping there, why ISIS is still allowed to transport and then sell oil to fund their operations.

          1. I think the main reason Obumbles does not want to destroy their oil operation is because of the environmental damage it would cause.

            No, you aren’t reading that wrong. Let that sink in.


            If he isnt sympathizer with violent jihadi’s tell me what he would do differently if he was.

            1. Future Historians will laugh at us.

    2. “ISIS would not be the threat it is today without our efforts in Iraq . . .”

      Instead all of those crazies would have joined some other outfit. And the Iraqi Kurds and Shi’ite fighters would have not have existed. And Saddam probably would have supported Syria’s rebels because he hated Assad. IOW it would have been no better and maybe worse.

  4. Blame Canada!

  5. What a quandry for mtrueman

    Does he lay blame on an Obama led America ?

    Or does he absolve America this time to cover for Obama ?.

  6. Meanwhile back in Sweden:


    Canada will take in 25 000 in a population of 35 million. Sweden? 150 000 in a population of 10 million.

    1. What kind of brain rot causes the leaders of Sweden to take such actions that leave their citizens in such a position ?

      How can the people let this happen without getting out their guillotines ?

      I’ve read other similar articles where citizens have to resort to private security measures meaning that only the wealthy have security of their selves, their homes, and posessions.

      1. What kind of brain rot causes the leaders of Sweden to take such actions that leave their citizens in such a position ?

        Well, you could replace the word “France” with the word “Sweden” in this article and you’d have your answer.

        1. Poo-tee-weet.

        2. Thanks for the link HM.

          I have brewed 2.5 gallons of beer today and dranks a few along the way. I have a rack of babybacks about to go on the grill.

          In other words I can’t do the article justice at this time. I book marked it though and will get back to you..

          It does seem the writer likes to equale historic actions, much like Obama, to todays problems.

          To ignore them would be folly but to directly blame them for the present is folly as well.

          1. To ignore them would be folly but to directly blame them for the present is folly as well.

            True, but then I read things like this, and I am reminded of the Bard’s words: “What’s past is prologue”

            1. I think Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom is the same scum who laughed and made light about the rape and murder epidemic Sweden is suffering at the hands of Muslim immigrants.

              Progressives are vile people.

              1. She really is a despicable, miserable cunt.

              2. “I think Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom is the same scum who laughed and made light about the rape and murder epidemic Sweden is suffering at the hands of Muslim immigrants.”

                And well she should. The ‘rape epidemic’ is largely a fairytale.

                1. And well she should. The ‘rape epidemic’ is largely a fairytale.

                  You deserve rape.

                  1. How dare I break up your fever dreams with reality!

                    1. The one you pulled out of your ass?

                    2. Cytotoxic thinks a multi-decade upward trend line and a wildly disproportionate number of Muslim rapists in prison are both explained away by a “redefinition of rape” that supposedly happened one year. In other words, a Logic 101/Statistics 101 fail for Cytotoxic.

            2. Arab Muslims are united that is true..


      2. Sweden is entirely brainwashed, populated entirely by useful idiots. Progressives and multiculturalists.

        They are doomed. Their government is beginning to cease functioning. Their economy is beginning to collapse. What we are seeing is the suicide of a nation.

        As someone here once pointed out, if your basic premises and assumptions about the world are all wrong you will be unable to solve any real-world problems. Everything you try will fail.

        I saw an interview the other day wherein a Swede was wringing her hands because “the government is not holding up its end of the social contract”. Her home had been broken into once or twice a week for a year and the cops would never show up when she called them. At no point did she suggest that she would take measures to stop it.

        1. There’s a hell of a lot of blowback there now against the unlimited mass immigration and universal welfare, so I don’t think they are all brainwashed. If they were all brainwashed, there wouldn’t be any infighting. It would be sort of like the entire country was composed of the Democratic party of the USA, where everyone goose steps in perfect sync.

          1. My point was that even the people complaining are using terms like ‘social contract’.

        2. Sweden already had the economic collapse back in the ’80s. This instigated pro-market reform.

      3. These are they guys cheering while their gov works to end physical cash.

        Not a brain trust of a country, this.

      4. Brain rot = progressivism.

        Really, it is. Never forget what Bezmenov said about that.

  7. Michael Weiss’s take on the region and the degree of America’s involvement seems to be at odds with Reason‘s (as much as the magazine generally has a single take).

    1. Weiss is a genuine FP wonk and doesn’t try to make reality fit neatly with his pre-conceived political posture.

      1. This, although I am crazy about all of Weiss’s ideas.

  8. “” Is America to Blame for Syria’s Disaster?”


    Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

    Like all similar “laws” (e.g., Murphy’s Law), Betteridge’s law of headlines is not always true.[3][4]

    That said = when it IS true, there is hardly any reason to ask the question, and is better made as a Statement, with the article providing a conclusive argument.

    Weiss is good on this stuff, but the headline is just stupid.

    The use of the term “No-Fly-Zone” – as Weiss points out – is also dishonest and misleading. Its an attempt to pretend that we can do what Clinton did with Iraq = put a country “on ice” indefinitely. But even proponents of the concept admit that’s *not really what is being suggested*. The US and its allies already maintain air-supremacy over the region, and basically grant permission-slips (or not) to anyone who wants to bomb someone else. Pretending we’re acting as some ‘neutral arbiter of peace’ whose only interest is preventing various parties from harming one another is beyond dishonest and borders on the delusional. (*which is basically the current Clinton-campaign posture)

    1. “The US and its allies already maintain air-supremacy over the region, and basically grant permission-slips (or not) to anyone who wants to bomb someone else. ”

      Does that take into consideration the Russians ?

      1. Yes. and they basically made their compromises about air-space access back in late October

      2. The real question is why with our complete control of the air ISIS still exists.

        1. That’s sort of like asking why criminals still exist in American cities despite the presence of police. Air superiority in actual combat is pretty important; not nearly so much in COIN.

          It’s almost as bad as the Republican stupidity on bombing ISIS out of existence.

          1. COIN only applies to insurgencies. ISIS is a state.

        2. ISIS is apparently slowly getting squeezed and choked out.

    2. I would have written it as

      “Is Betteridge’s law always true?”

  9. When the US doesn’t get involved the consequences are the US’s fault. When the US gets involved, its the US fault.

    1. +1 “Fuck you, now save us.”

  10. I watched the 60 minutes interview with Putin. He made it very clear that his goal was to prop up Assad. His reasoning was its better to prop up the devil you know than let the Syrian government fall into the hands of ISIS or a similar group. I can’t really see the flaw in that logic.

    1. You should check with Obama and Hilliary.

      I am certain they would educate you to the wise use of smart power.

      1. Just as soon as they can identify the liberal, democratic moderates of Syria that can be armed to overthrow Assad and fend off ISIS.

    2. It’s a balance of power thing. The balance between Shiite v. Sunni is delicate. Syria has been an Iranian and Russian client state and Putin wants to keep it that way. The US was/is attempting to move Syria into “our” camp by getting “moderate rebels” into power. Yeah, yeah, that’s gonna happen. It simply a matter of keeping the region stable. The Iranians and Saudis (plus the Turks on the Saudi side) are conducting a proxy war and Syria is one chip, Yemen another, Iraq another – and so on.

  11. The US theoretically could have nuked the entire country and left nobody alive to be refugees.

    Not that I’m advocating that as a solution.

    1. I think you dropped this, Ted.

      /picks up grin and hands it over.

    2. A tactical on Raqqa would be nice.

  12. Murika is partially to blame for it.

    I’m proposing a solution to make up for that. We air drop Obama, Hillary, John McCain and his mini-me Lindsey into the middle of the civil war zone in Syria. But to be fair, we give them boots. They will be some nice boots. And we follow them with camera drones and televise it worldwide. If we do this, I call for a clean slate and reset.

    1. ” I call for a clean slate and reset.”

      Then we can have a Peace-Surge

    2. As long as you don’t give them weapons. We can call them unarmed drones.

    3. And leave John Kerry back in Washington in charge ? .

      I think not young man

      Go to your room !

      1. I keep hearing that. What about Joe?! What about Kerry?!

        My answer: Aside from Hillary there is no person on the planet that isnt preferable to who we have now.

        1. The scary part to me is that if the liberal proggs in Europe are so deluded to reality that they will willingly bring this on themselvees can we epect any difference between those proggies and ours

          If Hilliary wins we may have another civil war because I don’t think the non liberal part of America is going to allow what Sweden , Germany, et al have done to themselves.

      2. If you consider me going to my room a punishment, you obviously do not know the wonders that I have in my room!

        But ok, and Lurch, Lurch gets dropped too, what size boots does that deformity wear?

  13. What if Trump supporters had done this to a …. Never mind.

    1. “With volunteers aplenty, people can be heard using some choice words as they batter the life-size doll, with one child saying, “I want to kill him”.

      “You’re bringing hate and we don’t want you as a president,” another woman can be heard saying before she swings at the pi?ata.”

      Progressives are the most enlightened, introspective people in the history of ever.


      1. The DOJ will be all over it.

  14. The western world is co-dependent to a fault. We’re like battered women trying to figure out what we did wrong. Maybe some of the blame, maybe, goes on Syria and its inhabitants.

    1. Whaaat ?

      What a revolutioinary idea.

      1. Can’t say that its racist against religions.

    2. The relative peace and stability that the middle east enjoyed after wwII until the arab spring was the fault of the secular west. What the people complaining about the evil we have done there don’t understand is that the middle east is simply returning to normal now that we have kind of left them to their own devices.

      Arab spring!

      The situation is indistinguishable from what it would be had we never intervened there.

      1. Yes it is. If we hadn’t intervened the area would be controlled by horrible dictators who we could buy.

        1. Having horrible dictators that we bought was us intervening in the first place. Obumbles taking our forces out of there prematurely was us stopping intervention.

          I am not endorsing the Iraq war. We should have left the horrible dictator in place instead of removing him and trying to replace him with another, but once we started down that path we should have stuck with it until we had another horrible dictator that we could buy.

  15. Pro-family groups sue to defend religious freedom against local “antidiscrimination” ordinances in two Indiana municipalities.

    These ordinances would force business people to provide services (eg, cakes) to which they are morally opposed.

    The suit demands that the government have the burden of proving that violating religious freedom in such cases is the least restrictive means of vindicating a compelling government interest.

    Indiana recently passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requiring the government to meet this heavy burden in *all* religious-freedom cases.

    But under outside pressure, Indiana passed a “fix” a few days after passing the original RFRA law. This “fix” declared that the government could force businesspeople to serve customers even when their (the businesspeople’s) conscience rights would be impaired. Conscientious objectors would lose *even if* violating their rights is not the least restrictive means of fulfilling a compelling government interest.

    But in cases which *don’t* involve the sale of goods and services, Indiana’s RFRA still puts the burden on the government to justify restrictions on religious conscience.

    1. So the government would have to prove compelling interest/least restrictive means if it wants to force a Sikh police officer to shave his beard.

      But the owner of the Christian Cake Shop could still be forced to cater Adam and Steve’s wedding.

      So Indiana’s RFRA makes arbitrary distinctions.

      The plaintiffs challenge these distinctions and ask that the government have to prove its interest in violating conscience rights *even if* the conscience in question belongs to someone who is engaged in icky commerce.

      1. Ya’ know, I wish these people would take off the gloves and start trolling the proggies the way the proggies troll them. Use their own shit to bully them around. Stop fucking around already.

        Have some homos or some jews force muslim bakers to make them a cake. Force a muslim baker to cater the annual hog farmers convention. Force the local lesbian flower shop to service a wedding for a nazi couple.

        Let’s see some judo here. Use their own tools against them. Pick one of their favorite groups and force them to do something that violates their conscience and keep doing it.

        1. That was supposed to be butcher, not baker…or candlestick maker.

          1. I figured butcher referred to the lesbians.

        2. I like the idea of forcing the Muslims to cater a Pork Growers Convention.

          I think it would garner the most attention and put the spotlight on the gays and their vendetta..

          I think I will start emailing that idea to one of them.

    2. Clearly unconstitutional under the 13th amendment.

  16. “But could the U.S. have done something to prevent the refugee crisis to being with?”

    Don’t invade Iraq?


    You ever wanted to fuck Jason with teeth. Nows your chance.

    1. “Can’t find a partner? Don’t worry, the ‘sexbot’, programmed to meet all your desires, is on its way. ”

      If an inanimate object can meet all of your desires then there is probably a good reason you can’t find a partner.

      Just sayin’.

  18. All this discussion of strategery is meaningless. Start with who supports freedom democracy and religious tolerance. And go from there. “de facto ally” and “deconfliction” and “western friendly” are pure nonsense. If they reject human rights then there’s just no point. Let them commit atrocities against each other, if that’s what they really want.

  19. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne ? this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore?? girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

    1. “The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law.” (remove space) comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_sweden/

      And continuing from HM’s link above, yes, it was Margret Wallstrom who laughed about the rape problem.…..comments=1

      1. So are any of these remotely reputable or just more lies?

        1. Here you go, champ. An example of where the people you don’t like get the facts you don’t like.

    2. Jesus Christ. I wonder if he coughed into his hand when he said whore I mean girl.

      1. Hey man, this guy is saving Sweden. He is an immigrant, and I have it on good authority from Cytotoxic that no bad has ever come of an immigrant. This man is single-handedly powering Sweden’s economy by getting on welfare and raping Swedish women, a task which employs many social workers and policemen. You don’t want to lose those policing jobs to Saudi Arabia, do you? Of course not. A couple Swedish girls’ bodily autonomy is a small thing to sacrifice for the enormous enrichment these immigrants are providing their country.

        1. Cytotoxic is completely unhinged with regards to this subject. I question his sanity. His arguments are shreek-level nonsense.

          As to the article, the idiots in Europe are being invaded. It is a muslim invasion of Europe, plain and simple. Many of them are actively recruited in their home countries and encouraged to behave that way. Some of them are told that they can rape white women in Europe with no consequences.

          The idiot progressives are welcoming invaders with open arms, people who are there to exterminate them and take all of their shit. It is beyond pathetic.

          “The purpose of brainwashing is to make it so that no matter how much information they have they cannot draw a sensible conclusion, and so they cannot defend themselves or their families or their country.” – Yuri Bezmenov, paraphrased.

          1. Men don’t allow that to happen to their country. Actual manhood would demand armed revolt at the idea of allowing an actual rape culture to develop and destroy your women’s security and bodily autonomy. It is beyond belief that Sweden is letting a population that is 1.5% the size of their own population to join the 5% who are already part of this world cancer.

            1. There was a character in Lilyhammer who was completely emasculated. I took it as a commentary of what’s happened in progressive Norway. Progressives love to emasculate the male under the guise of ‘evolving’.

          2. As for the Bezmenov bit, that is the brain rot that was referred to earlier by OneOut. Progressive/Socialist brainwashing.

          3. The juxtaposition of calling me ‘unhinged’ and then seriously claiming that Europe is being ‘invaded’ is too rich. Some serious pot-kettling right there.

            1. The girls of Roterham thank you for your support.

              1. The only thing Rotterham proved was that PC bullshit leads to tears.

                1. If by “PC bullshit” you mean, “allowing anyone into the country in a fit of pathological altruism,” you’re exactly right.

                  1. Whatever. Pretty sure Rotterham was a failure of CPS, but I highly doubt that will get in the way of shoehorning immigration as your bogey man.

                    1. You’re just going to ignore the fact that the perprs were nearly all Muslim/immigrants, that that’s why the problem was ignored, and that Rotherham is only one of many example in the UK of the same thing?

        2. I think his argument is, over time, the good that comes with immigration vastly dwarfs the bad.

          1. Which is absurd, since almost everyone involved in the debate supports at least some immigration.

            Why would we want to import good immigrants with bad ones if we have some way to filter? That is the question, isn’t it?

            If I can avoid importing Ahmad the serial rapist while still nabbing Juan the hard worker, why the fuck would I want both?

            If an immigrant can do harm, it’s a short step from there to suggesting that immigrants likely to do harm should not be extended invitation. If there’s such a thing as a “bad immigrant”, then the question of what we can do to exclude bad immigrants from making it to our country is a valid one — and one outside the framework of open borders. Us “wide gates, open fences” types have no problem with saying that there are bad immigrants, and we’re not the ones tying ourselves into knots calling people racist for observing that bad immigrants exist.

            1. “Why would we want to import good immigrants with bad ones if we have some way to filter? That is the question, isn’t it?”

              The state is uniquely unqualified to determine who is good and bad beyond keeping out people with TB and connections to terror/criminals/spies.

              “the question of what we can do to exclude bad immigrants from making it to our country is a valid one — and one outside the framework of open borders.”

              There is no ‘we’.

              1. LOL, because TB and “connections to terror/criminal/spies” are things the government has a complete and total handle on today, and *checks passport to see if from MENA country before issuing visa* is just fucking impossible to implement in any way.

                Great example, Cyto. We needed someone to come along and show what being blinded by open borders ideology looks like, and here you are. You’re dependable, if nothing else.

                1. Um. What? This does not address what I said.

                  “We needed someone to come along and show what being blinded by open borders ideology looks like, and here you are. You’re dependable, if nothing else.”

                  God damn me and my pro-freedom stances and excessive reliability on empirical evidence. When will I see the light of

                  1. It is not “pro-freedom” to import people who are anti-freedom. And there’s plenty of empirical evidence, you simply dismiss it with ad hominem fallacies.

    3. ” I guess you can say they get fucked to pieces.”

      -Wow. Not only do these ‘bags think they are superior to us culturally. They also shit on women and are fine with rape cause “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore?? girl, I mean”

      I would assume they don’t differentiate between Swedish and the rest of the non-dipshit world (west). Its culture rot. I have had this conversation with some of my buddies before. The men from this region are rotten to the core. They don’t care for their mothers and sisters (honor killings) and they definitely don’t care for the women they are sticking their little peckers in. This is the male chauvinism that feminists talk about.

      1. They may talk about it but they don’t care about it. They love them some Muslims because Muslim societies are authoritarian, their own preferred system.

        1. Do you think the hardcore feminists deep down want to be dominated? Its a theory I have been pondering for a while. It would explain their devotion to protecting islamists. Like some sideways kink.

          1. I am not what I would call an alpha male. I am not macho or pushy. I am not a beta either. I am typically extremely polite and easy going and a good listener. I have good social skills and I am clean shaven and well groomed. I try to treat everyone with respect.

            On the other hand I am not feminine in any way. Everything about me is male and I am exclusively heterosexual. I can be very firm when I need to be and I don’t tolerate bullshit lightly. I stand up straight and look people in the eye and call things what they are. I will tell anyone to go fuck themselves right now if they deserve it and I don’t mince words. I am never physically threatening yet I have been told that no one wants to fuck with me. I think it is because they sense confidence.

            I am also one of those evil conservative/libertarian types.

            I find that feminist type women, and even lesbians love the hell out of me. I have more than a few men-hating lesbians as friends. Go figure. One that sticks in my mind from years ago;

            She was telling me about some guy making a pass at her, or alluding to something along those lines and she said “You know I am a lesbian, right?”. I said “Of course. I hope you don’t think that makes you less of a woman.”
            The look on her face was disbelief. She was speechless. Everything about her behavior towards me changed after that. Two months later she was throwing herself at me. Turns out she likes to be tied up.

            1. Me as an anecdote is all I have to go on. Does that answer your question?

              1. For a question that can’t be answered I’ll give it an A+. Thanks for sharing that slice. The lesbian that turned straight was the best part.

                1. She turned bi. She told me it was because of me. “I never knew it could be like that.” is what she said.

                  The greatest compliment I have ever received by a factor of ten. Damn, I haven’t thought of her in years. Now I miss her.

                  1. That’s a fucking awesome story. Just wish I had something that awesome to relate (have had some similar experiences with feminists, but they were all formerly hetero, heh).

                    1. My brother is jealous of my many, many pre-marital amorous adventures. He married at 19 and is still with her.

                      I try in vain to explain to him why he got the better deal and didn’t miss a thing.

                    2. Completely agree with you. Did some stupid shit when I was 19-20, and then found my wife. Even the shittiest years with her have been far, far better than the best year with myself — and I’m not a humble man to say that unless it were true, heh.

                      Does make for good stories, though.

                    3. My brother is jealous of my many, many pre-marital amorous adventures. He married at 19 and is still with her.

                      I try in vain to explain to him why he got the better deal and didn’t miss a thing.

                      -Why is that?

                    4. Just what Immaculate Trouser said. I am twenty years into a monogamous marriage and the worst times in this marriage were better than the best times I had catting around.

                      My brother didn’t miss a thing. He got the good life right off of the bat. They have two excellent sons and his wife takes very good care of him.

                      If I had to be single again I am not sure I would want to date. Too much crazy out there.

                  2. You should get back in touch with her and give her the shittiest lay of her life. If she turns back into a lesbian, you should change your handle to “magician”

                    1. *laughs*

      2. This is the male chauvinism that feminists talk about

        Sure it is. It’s also the world that feminists created. The feminist “men” of Sweden are unassertive shits who are losing their own women to these animals. The feminist “women”, likewise, are voting with their cunts — and it seems they’ve voted for Ahmad and his friends over the manginas fabricated by feminist Sweden. The cherry on top is that Muslims really can get away with crimes that, in the US, would get someone a literal death sentence — whether through the courts or through some prison justice. In Sweden, it barely warrants attention and certainly won’t stop the importation of even more of these barbarians.

        Part of Sweden’s problem is that they’re letting in people who fundamentally disdain their culture and ideals. The other part is that Sweden’s culture and ideals deserve to be disdained, insofar as they promote timid manhood and a miscarriage of justice against their own population.

        1. Twenty five percent of men in England report suffering symptoms of menstruation.

          I nearly choked reading your comment and that was the first thing that popped in my head.

        2. What, no ironic jokes about Stockholm Syndrome?

          1. Rufus walks on and wins with seven words. Bravo.

          2. Threadwinner.

            1. Am I supposed to bow or something?

    4. Wow, how utterly vile. I’m glad we don’t have such disgusting rot in our culture.

      *checks latest posts at*

  20. Canada Welcomes Syrian Refugees. But Is America to Blame for Syria’s Disaster?

    McDonald’s sells french fries. But is Minnesota full of Swedes?

    Non-sequitur headlines are fun!

    1. But the Middle East had thousands of years of peace and prosperity before America messed everything up!!1!

  21. They posted another article. Jump

  22. “Is the US responsible for Syria’s disaster?”

    No. This is primarily Assad’s fault. America’s share of blame: zero. Actually, negative considering that it was America that liberated the Kurds who are now choking out ISIS.

  23. Trudeau sucks but letting those people in is righteous. A glorious example of the right thing in action.

  24. Cripes the niqab article is full of idiots that think that criticizing the niqab = wanting it banned and this thread is full of idiots that seriously believe in a Swedish ‘rape epidemic’ and that Europe is being ‘invaded’.

    1. According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, some 60+% of all rape convictions from 1985-1989 were the result of individuals with an immigrant background. No info available for other years, as the Council stopped tracking immigration data in these stats — funny, that.

      This is in keeping with what I’ve heard from my Swedish friends from when I was stationed in Germany.

      But sure, no problems with immigrants whatsoever.

      1. This is still not convincing. Does not preclude the possibility that Swedes rape at a very abnormally low rate and therefore immigrants make up a disproportionate rapist rate.

        The reason why Sweden’s rape epidemic is a fairy tale is because 1) Sweden has a bizarre definition of rape and way of counting rape and 2) this definition was changed in the 2000s and that alone can explain the ‘epidemic’.

        It is also bizarre that no other country has seen this ‘rape epidemic’. This is almost as hoary a tale as the ‘no go zones’ of France.

        1. The “rape epidemic” in Sweden is strange. The main sources of news on the topic in Google are sites like breitbart and info wars. It took all but 15 minutes of digging to find out that it’s bullshit. it appears to be the right’s equivalent to left wing biases. But hey if it confirms your narrative and consequential pants shitting over Muslim immigrants…

          1. Here’s one.

            Once more I’ll point out that I didn’t come across this issue on a right-wing site, but became aware of it when I was living in Germany.

            But please, don’t allow your shitty Googling get in the way of calling everyone who doesn’t raise the Cytotoxic Banner a pants-shitter.

            1. Still no evidence of a “rape epidemic” your shifty blog link notwithstanding.

                1. Sorry champ, I don’t read swede.


                  “The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden – it’s almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010.
                  So something’s going on.

                  But Klara Selin says the statistics don’t represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.

                  The police have also made efforts to improve their handling of cases, she suggests, though she doesn’t deny that there has been some real increase in the number of attacks taking place – a concern also outlined in an Amnesty International report in 2010.
                  “There might also be some increase in actual crime because of societal changes. Due to the internet, for example, it’s much easier these days to meet somebody,..

                  “But the major explanation is partly that people go to the police more often, but also the fact that in 2005 there has been reform in the sex crime legislation, which made the legal definition of rape much wider than before.”

                  The change in law meant that cases where the victim was asleep or intoxicated are now included in the figures. Previously they’d been recorded as another category of crime.”

                  1. So this went from a “fairy tale” to “pants-shitting”, to some shit about 2005 — which if you’d read my or Papaya’s links, you’d realize doesn’t account for the pre-2005 statistics confirming the same damn thing: that immigrants account for a majority of rape convictions from ~1985 onwards, and that those in prison for the crime are largely Muslim.

                    But yes, let’s go for the explanation that doesn’t account for almost any of the data because it’s much safer for open border biases. (Wouldn’t mind hearing how this issue went from not being on your radar to you being an expert, boss. Y’know, for fun.)

                    1. ” immigrants account for a majority of rape convictions from ~1985 onward”

                      Can’t help but notice that you haven’t addressed my issue.

                    2. Can’t help but notice that you haven’t addressed my issue

                      I’ve told you before, Cyto. Nothing can help with your micropenis. I’m so sorry you had to hear it from me, but at least now you’ll learn to live with the surprised laughter of any girls you have over for Netflix and chill

              1. You didn’t read the blog. Otherwise, you’d see that what I linked to is a simple compilation of official studies with some numbers pulled out of it, and that the site itself is non-political. And of course evidence is exactly what I presented for Sweden’s highly abnormal rape statistics: you simply rejected it out of hand and engaged in theatrics by referring to it as a “rape epidemic”, a term I never used.

                Par for the course.

                1. I did read the blog, at least the section on Sweden and it does not suggest a major catastrophe or epidemic. You’re correct, you never used the term “rape epidemic”. It was used by suthenboy above where the debate got started. That said, there is nothing abnormal about the statistics other than what is discussed in the BBC article I linked about. The changes in the statistics are due to changes in how rape is defined and reported.

            2. Also, remember, when anyone, particularly those associated with the media or politics uses the term “epidemic” you can bet there is some serious pants shitting taking place. Think obesity epidemic, drug epidemic, and one of the latest, mass shooting epidemic. Again, as I said above, “epidemics” are usually associated with people selling a specific narrative as are those who are using the Swedish rape epidemic.

              1. By that argument, there are no such things as wolves either — whatwith all those boys falsely crying about it all the time.

                Your logic needs work.

                1. Wait a minute IT, are you now defending the use of the term rape epidemic?

                  1. As a rule I don’t use terms like “epidemic”, “[mind-killing politics]-gate”, “sheeple”, etc. They’re emotionally-rooted terms meant to inspire immediate action and don’t add to anyone’s knowledge of the situation.

                    My general point was that the existence of people who are more emotional about these issues doesn’t mean that there isn’t something negative going on. Example: many libertarians are incredibly hyperbolic about US government debt and default as an imminent threat — but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem for the decades down the road.

                    1. That’s a whole different argument and one I can respect, as an open borders guy I can even understand a number of arguments against. That said, saying we need to keep out the Muslims because of a rape epidemic in… Sweden is bullshit hysteria and never a good way to determine public policy.

                    2. saying we need to keep out the Muslims because of a rape epidemic in… Sweden is bullshit hysteria

                      I agree. Our Muslim population is (as far as I’m aware) not involved in what we’ve seen happen in the UK and Sweden vis a vis sexual assault, and seems much better integrated than the Muslim population in Europe from what I could tell.

                      The only reason I’m involved in this discussion is because Cytotoxic pisses me off and the general approach of “my politics are without sin” pisses me off. Open borders is defensible. I’m in no way surprised that lots of smart people support it; there’s a lot of good it could do if everything pans out the way its supporters say it will. It is not perfect, and saying so is wrong.

              2. Just because people cry “Wolf!” does not disprove the existence of wolves.

                Sweden is #6.

                I am old enough to remember the ’70s argument that Sweden had no rape because they had porn. Now they have lots of rape, lots of immigrants from a misogynist religion and culture, and lots of Muslims in prison for rape. Connect the dots.

                1. You cannot compare countries because they define rape differently. Sweden has and EXREMELY broad definition of rape… or do you REALLY believe Sweden is more dangerous for a woman than most of war torn sub Saharan Africa?


                  “There have been several international comparisons made, placing Sweden at the top end of the number of reported rapes. However, police procedures and legal definitions vary widely across countries, which makes it difficult to compare rape statistics. For example, Sweden reformed its sex crime legislation and made the legal definition of rape much wider in 2005, which largely explains a significant increase in the number of reported rapes in the ten-year period of 2004-2013.The Swedish police also record each instance of sexual violence in every case separately, leading to an inflated number of cases compared to other countries.Additionally, the Swedish police have improved the handling of rape cases, in an effort to increase the number of crimes reported.”

                  1. They don’t care about facts. They have their narrative and they will roll with to the end.

                    1. TIT + PapayaSF = PWND

                      Yokeltarian trash, curb. Curb, yokeltarian trash.

                    2. They’re doing the same thing we in the commentariat often accuse the left of doing when it comes to guns. They’re trying to scare people into agreeing with them. The right does it as well unless you really believe marijuana is a gateway drug.

                    3. Nobody’s trying to scare anyone. My point is that there are some things that don’t map well to ideology, and that don’t have happy answers with no tradeoffs. Most of life involves tradeoffs; why would politics be any different? I have plenty of political convictions which have bad effects; I think the good outweighs the bad but in reality another person can have a different view from mine. I’m more of an environmentalist than most classical liberals; those tradeoffs may very well be the wrong ones. I believe that the free press has largely been a failure when evaluated in utilitarian terms; I would nonetheless continue to support the press’s independence based on my principles.

                      This just happens to be an issue where I have some knowledge and you don’t. The definitional changes of the 2000s simply cannot account for convictions which were secured before the changes took place — fact is, there is a hugely disproportionate level of sexual assault coming from the MENA immigrant communities coming to Scandinavia. If you want to keep supporting open borders — fine. There’s arguments for it all over the place. Just don’t feed me shit about how there’s no bad thing that can ever or has ever happened as a result — it’s a form of politics that is endemic among utopias and creates nothing but self-righteousness in the people who it infects.

                    4. “fact is, there is a hugely disproportionate level of sexual assault coming from the MENA immigrant communities coming to Scandinavia. ”

                      Again that does not prove any kind of rape epidemic, nor does it even prove that the MENA meanies are particularly rapey-it could just be that the native Scandi’s are more rape-averse than normal.

                      MWG has you and your fellow traveler’s number dialed: you’ll purse whatever line of BS you can and claim you just want a ‘conversation’ about guns immigrants. Then it’s a short trip to ‘BAN MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS IF U LUV MERICA’.

                    5. Supposing Scandinavia is more rape-averse than the norm — is that a bad thing? Is this a sin that Scandinavia needs to atone for by importing more people who are closer to the average?

                      Were I a Swede, I would consider my countrymen’s avoidance of rape an enormous triumph, in the same way that I consider the US’ gun laws an incredibly wonderful (and culturally-based) outlier which should be protected. I would not consider the erosion of our country’s achievement a good thing. I would not consider it appropriate to completely discount my countrywomens’ decreased lack of security and bodily autonomy simply because it is inconvenient to my ideology. You are an obnoxious and repulsive human being if you are so unwilling to acknowledge tradeoffs, that you can agree with Sweden’s prime minister in laughing off this diminishment of security for Swedish women as completely unworthy of mention.

  25. Another narrative bites the dust: France’s far-right National Front (FN) has failed to win a single region in the second round of municipal elections, preliminary results show.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.