Sweden buys camels for immigrants to help with integration.

[StonyArabia]

I don't say they were unwanted there, but name me one who made plans to settle them permanently by millions.

I do know that the Germans originally invited the Turks. Even Angela Merkel said we believed they will go home, but they are here to stay.

Even if they were citizens in the past. This time is gone, so what is your point?

These non-Whites such as North Africans and South Asians and to lesser extent Africans are a result of the European empires and there descendants now are citizens of the respective colonial nations. The time might be gone, but certainly not it's legacy.

Also, many migrants never were citizens of European colonies. Sweden's had no colonies in the recent past and hardly any at all.

I was referring to Britain and France, as well other Western nations who did. Sure Sweden did not have the colonies, however it choose to put itself through this situation, because it wants to appear as the humanitarian power

I don't buy it, because they can't pay them less than the EU minimum which is enough to attract guest workers from Eastern Europe.

Well there many other factors.

You can just as well call traitors European politicians who are responsible for the massive foreign invasion on their soil. Will you? They are extremely disliked too.

Of course they will be disliked, because there is large wave of migrants, and I would not call it an invasion. If you want to see what a real invasion looks like, then see the Iraq war of 2003. These people are just escaping the hell that was unleashed on them.

Anyway, as a war is over, there's no reason to hide in a foreign refuge, do you agree?? One can't be considered a refugee anymore if there's no humanitarian disaster in ones land.

If the war is over, I believe these people should go back to their nation and rebuild it. Well there are different types of refugees, but if the situation improves most people would like to go into their own land, because that's how it's naturally.

OK, you've said it yourself. Migrants prefer Sweden to Poland to be provided with more benefits. Also, some of the migrants from bombed countries like Iraq and Syria choose Sweden over NATO members. Do you think they should go to NATO countries instead and/or move home as the war ends there?

It's not only due to benefits, because it's more complex, it's also Sweden trying to show itself as world power through humanitarianism. I believe ideally that NATO nations especially Britain and U.S are responsible for this situation, and this why they should be the ones taking responsibility for the refugees and the so called migrant crisis. However since many refugees from Syria and Iraq are in Sweden, Germany and so on, I believe they should stay there, until the war ends and their nations rebuild. I believe Britain and the U.S should get these refugees and even provide compensation.

[Rumata]

I do know that the Germans originally invited the Turks. Even Angela Merkel said we believed they will go home, but they are here to stay.

So, you see that no one invited them there for good. Besides Germans only invited workers, but most of current Turkish population in Germany is probably not those workers, but relatives who were invited by those workers. Or relatives of relatives who already became residents, etc.

These non-Whites such as North Africans and South Asians and to lesser extent Africans are a result of the European empires and there descendants now are citizens of the respective colonial nations. The time might be gone, but certainly not it's legacy.

So what? Now, they are citizens of different sovereign states, that's what matters. So, in my childhood, I could easily travel to Lithuania and live there as long as I wished but now I can't even enter it without a visa as now it's a different state. Is it hard to grasp?

I was referring to Britain and France, as well other Western nations who did. Sure Sweden did not have the colonies, however it choose to put itself through this situation, because it wants to appear as the humanitarian power

The matter is migrants ignore the fact that many Swedes don't want them in Sweden as it doesn't suit them. They pass NATO countries to get to Sweden. No one sends them invitations.
If you choose to respect decisions of the hated government of Sweden, you should also respect decisions of hated government of Libya. Just to be fair.

Of course they will be disliked, because there is large wave of migrants, and I would not call it an invasion. If you want to see what a real invasion looks like, then see the Iraq war of 2003. These people are just escaping the hell that was unleashed on them.

You forget that many of them just had unleashed that hell on themselves. Particularly sub-Saharan and East Africans. Yes, it's an invasion too, and they are armed with wombs and savageness, which is bad enough for some meek western societies.
Western invasion to MENA is destructive but it leaves no western residents unlike the backward invasion which leaves dozens of millions of residents.

If the war is over, I believe these people should go back to their nation and rebuild it. Well there are different types of refugees, but if the situation improves most people would like to go into their own land, because that's how it's naturally.

OK. When the wars are over, let's if they are willing to come back and what will be done to do it.

It's not only due to benefits, because it's more complex, it's also Sweden trying to show itself as world power through humanitarianism. I believe ideally that NATO nations especially Britain and U.S are responsible for this situation, and this why they should be the ones taking responsibility for the refugees and the so called migrant crisis. However since many refugees from Syria and Iraq are in Sweden, Germany and so on, I believe they should stay there, until the war ends and their nations rebuild. I believe Britain and the U.S should get these refugees and even provide compensation.

I care little about how U. S. and C fix their shit but I see no reason for refugees to stay in countries like Sweden and come there at all (show me one). I believe the government of Sweden shows the world that it's capable of destruction of the once advanced country in the shortest time. It's anti-humanitarianism against the own population.
What is there besides benefits that makes refugees go to Sweden instead of NATO countries?

[Sarmatian]

Yep, they should start with the difference between camel and woman.

They will just establish special brothels for immigrants. No women will work there, only camels.

[StonyArabia]

So, you see that no one invited them there for good. Besides Germans only invited workers, but most of current Turkish population in Germany is probably not those workers, but relatives who were invited by those workers. Or relatives of relatives who already became residents, etc.

That's probably true, but it's to late for the Germans to send them back to Turkey. Anyways when Turkey's economy improved many returned back to it.

So what? Now, they are citizens of different sovereign states, that's what matters. So, in my childhood, I could easily travel to Lithuania and live there as long as I wished but now I can't even enter it without a visa as now it's a different state. Is it hard to grasp?

That's true, however many of the so called immigrants are actually descendants of the colonial subjects like North Africans and South Asians. Not it is not, and they are a legacy of the colonial rule, just like the Russian minorities are legacy of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union in other parts of Eastern Europe like the Baltic nations.

The matter is migrants ignore the fact that many Swedes don't want them in Sweden as it doesn't suit them. They pass NATO countries to get to Sweden. No one sends them invitations.
If you choose to respect decisions of the hated government of Sweden, you should also respect decisions of hated government of Libya. Just to be fair.

Well I agree, but the fact most of them don't want to end up in Sweden pre se, many want to go to Britain, France, and western Europe in general. However Sweden choose that, mostly the Swedish government. The Swedes can out vote their politicians and also they should put pressure on the Western NATO members not to intervene in the Middle East and North Africa. There is no doubt that the Swedish government is hated by large number of it's people, just like the Libyan government which has become chaotic after the NATO invasion and deposing of Ghaddaffi.

You forget that many of them just had unleashed that hell on themselves. Particularly sub-Saharan and East Africans. Yes, it's an invasion too, and they are armed with wombs and savageness, which is bad enough for some meek western societies.
Western invasion to MENA is destructive but it leaves no western residents unlike the backward invasion which leaves dozens of millions of residents.

That is true indeed in the case of Africa. However in the case of North Africa and the Middle East, it was largely U.S and Britain destructive policies that created this situation. After the U.S and Britain as well NATO destroyed once functioning government of Iraq and Libya, and then this spilled into Syria. Not to mention that war of 2003 was the most destructive war to date. After because of geopolitical plunders, the Iraqi civil war created by the U.S would spill into Syria, thus inflaming the region. If the U.S and the Western did not invade the Mideast there would not have been such a migrant crisis in the first place. With the destruction of the Libyan government, more and more East and SSA Africans began to take an advantage of the situation, the same was also true of South/Central Asians who were coming via Turkey, due to the Syrian crisis. Iraq was totally destroyed. I would not call MENA savages, the savages and barbarians who had invaded their land to secure their interest and plunder their oil. Well I agree that womb might become a weapon, but usually MENA birth rates would follow suit of the native population, but Europeans should themselves make babies. MENA's have also been successful in the Western nations especially in Britain and U.S even being more successful than the White population.

OK. When the wars are over, let's if they are willing to come back and what will be done to do it.

Most of them want to return to their homeland, however there are other facts that will not let them do it. That is American and Western intervention in general in those regions. In which has proved more destructive than anything else. Thus there will be civil wars that will plunge these nations for years to come. However if it actually ends, and their nations economically recover most of them would return back to their homeland. Ask yourself is there an Omani migrant into Europe and the West? The answer there is not, because Oman as country relatively does well for itself so there is no need for immigrants. Before the Anglo-Americans waging 40 years war on Iraq. Iraq had been much better than Oman, and there was no migrants from it to Europe or North America, only after it suffered heavy wars, then you have found migrants coming out. However the situation in North Africa different.

I care little about how U. S. and C fix their shit but I see no reason for refugees to stay in countries like Sweden and come there at all (show me one). I believe the government of Sweden shows the world that it's capable of destruction of the once advanced country in the shortest time. It's anti-humanitarianism against the own population.

Caring little to how the U.S and Britain fix the problem created, means that you don't truly care about the migrant crisis that has befallen Europe, which largely has fallen to other parts of Europe. I would not call Sweden the most advanced nation, sure it's quite advanced but I would say that title still goes to Germany, Britain, France and Italy. That's the problem of the Swedish government which has decided to act as humanitarian world power, and if you think about it has a racist tint itself, and lets not forget they can be out voted if the Swedish people choose to.

that is there besides benefits that makes refugees go to Sweden instead of NATO countries?

Benefit are part of it, sure, however many go to Britain, France and other NATO based nations. Also many of them want to go to North America. However none of them want to to Europe in general as in Eastern Europe. They just use it as as transit point. Sweden is not the only nation, since it choose to put itself through itself ie Swedish government, there many refugees who came to Canada and the U.S , but for the most part it's also distance to Europe is closer than that of North America. For example not all refugees even went to Europe many went to other Arab countries like Saudi Arabia,despite what the Western media says. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia had taken lots of Iraqi refugees before, but it was the Western nations that decided to take them, alongside Brazil. Thus it's more complex than oh I want benefits from Sweden. MENA's for the most part are hard working people especially Syrians and Iraqis. Trust me there are no benefits in Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations did not sign the 1951 Refugee Convention in the U.N, they still did. However a large wave of the refugees are from Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, South Asia, Central Asia who have take advantage of the situation and thus are entering Europe. All of this would have been avoided if the Libyan government was not destroyed, if Iraq was not brutalized, and it's war spilling over into Syria.

[Rumata]

That's probably true, but it's to late for the Germans to send them back to Turkey. Anyways when Turkey's economy improved many returned back to it.

You say many returned to Turkey but their absolute number in Germany is growing fast AFAIK.
Erdogan calls on Turkish families in Europe to have five children to protect against 'injustices'
And no, it's never too late to return. Why would that be?

That's true, however many of the so called immigrants are actually descendants of the colonial subjects like North Africans and South Asians. Not it is not, and they are a legacy of the colonial rule, just like the Russian minorities are legacy of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union in other parts of Eastern Europe like the Baltic nations.

No matter what "legacy". They've chosen their countries to be independent and they can't undo that. Neither the Russian minorities in foreign countries have the same rights and possibilities as Russians residing in Russia. They are foreign citizens. Period. Until they change the citizenship. Are we clear here?

Well I agree, but the fact most of them don't want to end up in Sweden pre se, many want to go to Britain, France, and western Europe in general. However Sweden choose that, mostly the Swedish government. The Swedes can out vote their politicians and also they should put pressure on the Western NATO members not to intervene in the Middle East and North Africa. There is no doubt that the Swedish government is hated by large number of it's people, just like the Libyan government which has become chaotic after the NATO invasion and deposing of Ghaddaffi.

The Swedish government uses media to manipulate the public opinion. The criticism of migrant politic is largely outlawed. Not to say it gets its votes in a closed ballot... which never guarantees the non-falsified result.

Sweden is located further from MENA and Africa than European NATO members. Migrants would certainly stopped in NATO countries if it were their destination, no matter what Swedish government has to say on the issue. Got it?
I guess the Swedish government is nothing to U. S. to meddle in American politics.

That is true indeed in the case of Africa. However in the case of North Africa and the Middle East, it was largely U.S and Britain destructive policies that created this situation. After the U.S and Britain as well NATO destroyed once functioning government of Iraq and Libya, and then this spilled into Syria. Not to mention that war of 2003 was the most destructive war to date. After because of geopolitical plunders, the Iraqi civil war created by the U.S would spill into Syria, thus inflaming the region. If the U.S and the Western did not invade the Mideast there would not have been such a migrant crisis in the first place. With the destruction of the Libyan government, more and more East and SSA Africans began to take an advantage of the situation, the same was also true of South/Central Asians who were coming via Turkey, due to the Syrian crisis. Iraq was totally destroyed. I would not call MENA savages, the savages and barbarians who had invaded their land to secure their interest and plunder their oil. Well I agree that womb might become a weapon, but usually MENA birth rates would follow suit of the native population, but Europeans should themselves make babies. MENA's have also been successful in the Western nations especially in Britain and U.S even being more successful than the White population.

Indeed the wars in MENA countries can be the pretext to open doors for immigration.

I would not call MENA savages

You wouldn't as you have to stay loyal to MENA people. But I would:
No more asylum seekers from Morocco, says Germany's most populous state citing crime

Most of them want to return to their homeland, however there are other facts that will not let them do it. That is American and Western intervention in general in those regions. In which has proved more destructive than anything else. Thus there will be civil wars that will plunge these nations for years to come. However if it actually ends, and their nations economically recover most of them would return back to their homeland. Ask yourself is there an Omani migrant into Europe and the West? The answer there is not, because Oman as country relatively does well for itself so there is no need for immigrants. Before the Anglo-Americans waging 40 years war on Iraq. Iraq had been much better than Oman, and there was no migrants from it to Europe or North America, only after it suffered heavy wars, then you have found migrants coming out. However the situation in North Africa different.

OK, but they shouldn't just wait when their countries are recovered economically. If they care about their homeland they should come and help it to recover as soon as possible. Particularly, considering many of them are young people full of energy.

Caring little to how the U.S and Britain fix the problem created, means that you don't truly care about the migrant crisis that has befallen Europe, which largely has fallen to other parts of Europe. I would not call Sweden the most advanced nation, sure it's quite advanced but I would say that title still goes to Germany, Britain, France and Italy. That's the problem of the Swedish government which has decided to act as humanitarian world power, and if you think about it has a racist tint itself, and lets not forget they can be out voted if the Swedish people choose to.

Don't you believe in democracy to much for a MENA man? MENA way seems to be dictatorship... I don't believe it myself, but it's because the voting is closed from the people.
Swedish government decided to finish Swedish nation it seems.

Benefit are part of it, sure, however many go to Britain, France and other NATO based nations. Also many of them want to go to North America. However none of them want to to Europe in general as in Eastern Europe. They just use it as as transit point. Sweden is not the only nation, since it choose to put itself through itself ie Swedish government, there many refugees who came to Canada and the U.S , but for the most part it's also distance to Europe is closer than that of North America. For example not all refugees even went to Europe many went to other Arab countries like Saudi Arabia,despite what the Western media says. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia had taken lots of Iraqi refugees before, but it was the Western nations that decided to take them, alongside Brazil. Thus it's more complex than oh I want benefits from Sweden. MENA's for the most part are hard working people especially Syrians and Iraqis. Trust me there are no benefits in Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations did not sign the 1951 Refugee Convention in the U.N, they still did. However a large wave of the refugees are from Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, South Asia, Central Asia who have take advantage of the situation and thus are entering Europe. All of this would have been avoided if the Libyan government was not destroyed, if Iraq was not brutalized, and it's war spilling over into Syria.

OK, I largely agree, but I still don't see what allures the refugees in Sweden, except the social benefits. I see that Arabic countries are close to them culturally, though.

[Rumata]

PeterSweden
Thanks for watching, please share with all your friends. The truth about the hidden agenda needs to be spread. If you want to support real independent journalism, you can help me out here:...

PeterSweden
Please share this video with all your friends. The truth about the hidden agenda of the migrant crisis needs to be spread. The MSM will not tell you this.

The World Is On Fire
3430 Rapes in first 6 months of 2017!!?? WTF!!?? I literally had to pause it there so I could think... omg

Mattias Dahlström
That is reported rapes - the true number is higher.

corinne davidge
WHY IS THE REST OF THE WORLD NOT HEARING THIS ON OUR CRAP MAIN MEDIA? We went on britain first rally today its shocking here in london too i want to scream all this madness & raping & killling of our nationals!!!!!!! Thank u peter

[Petros Houhoulis]

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/naomi...-kamelmjolken/

Congrats. Make Arabs happy.

...This is a ploy to get the Turks extinct.