[The Immortal Goon]

Oh please. Communists are intellectually bankrupt. If they had any intellectual honesty they would dissolve their little cult.

Anyway, what I'm interested in here is whether secular regimes in the ME (of which there were many) actually achieved some lasting changes among their respective populations. Atatürk arguably did, but even there we see a backlash. Whether the communist regime in Afghanistan would have achieved it is a hypothetical question, it didn't survive long enough.

I am in no way surprised that you'd like to talk about virtually anything that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The issue was about why Milo feels like Muslims hate him. The answer is that there is violence in the Middle East perpetrated by reactionary regimes and groups that were funded, armed, trained, and developed by the West to fight the commies. It is amazingly self-explanatory why this started to become a big issue in the 1990s.

The fact is that the communists didn't last long enough in the Middle East, as you pointed out.

Perhaps. The only valid argument that Milo actually makes is that the so called "Left" in the US and World-Wide Left are both pro-immigration. Communism and Socialism have almost always been internationalist.

Internationalism here has a different context though. For Marxists, there is a worldwide system with two international classes that are opposing each other. It is a development devoid of being good or evil. Simply something that happened:

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

For left-leaning liberals, there is a moral imperative to make everyone like themselves (this includes any number of good-natured imperial projects, the Americans always drowning on about being, "the last best hope," and, "a shining city on a hill," and all that). One is embracing reality and explaining how it works, the other is justifying it.

Also Comminism/Socialism has been more open-minded and oriented on Social Issues

This is more interesting in a lot of ways. As with many things Marxist, this was up in the air in the 19th century, resolved by the Bolsheviks, and then torn asunder by the Stalin-Trotsky debate.

The big issue was whether these social issues were the result of the base or superstructure in a society and how they could be influenced. No less than Gramsci fiddled with Marx's model, so there is plenty to be tinkered with.

The initial issue was most clearly, in my opinion, laid out in the DeLeon (a pope of Marxism) and Connolly (Irish Marxist and martyr) debate. DeLeon had proposed, and maintained, a social program that involved sex, marriage, etc, etc. Connolly maintained that they lived in a capitalist society and needed to focus on the emancipation of the working class; that this would begin the change of whatever social issues came up.

The stuff about the Soviet "New Man" later was largely about the generation that would grow up not knowing a strictly capitalist society. Lenin in his interview with Zetkin (and by his actions) make clear he was still taking Connolly's line of allowing the changes in society to dictate the social issues. This changes under Stalin, who argues things have changed enough that the body politic should take control of the social mores. Naturally Trotsky disagrees and everyone argued about that for the rest of eternity.

This all said, within the Marxist sphere of influence, this is a question about what mechanisms alter society and its relations both practically and whatnot. I'm more of a Connollyist:

In the first place, I have long been of opinion that the Socialist movement elsewhere was to a great extent hampered by the presence in its ranks of faddists and cranks, who were in the movement, not for the cause of Socialism, but because they thought they saw in it a means of ventilating their theories on such questions as sex, religion, vaccination, vegetarianism, etc., and I believed that such ideas had or ought to have no place in our programme or in our party. I held that, if under the Socialist Republic individuals desired to have a Freethinker’s propagandist, a Jewish Rabbi, a mesmerist, a Catholic priest, a Salvation captain, a professional clown, or a Protestant divine, they would be perfectly free to maintain them for any of these purposes provided that society was reimbursed for the loss of their labour. In other words, that Socialism was compatible with the greatest intellectual freedom, or even freakishness. And that, therefore, we were as a body concerned only with the question of political and economic freedom for our class.

In this, the left-leaning liberals are somewhat inverted. They do not embrace the political and economic freedom of our class, but want only the, "faddists and cranks" elevated. Which, fine. In most ways they're more fun and at least not as cynically evil as the rest falling in line to lick their master's palm while the master strangles a worker.

This is a long way of saying that the liberal that leans a bit to the left and the socialist superficially will find themselves on the same sides of these issues, you're correct, but usually we arrive there by mere accident.

[skinster]

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not have evidence like in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Let's see what you do have.

But I see leftists and Muslims together demonstrating for open borders,

Please provide evidence for this claim. It is entirely possible that you are misconstruing the identities of the people involved, and the demands they have.

against Western interests in the Middle East.

Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism are common struggles for leftists, and all people from the developing world.

So, this is not a case of leftists or progressives supporting Islam. But instead, it is an example of how leftists, progressives, and people from the developing world all have common goals.

I see feminists argue that niqabs should be accepted,

Yes, feminists will often argue against men who tell them what they can and cannot wear. Again, this is not supporting Islam, but fighting against men telling them how to dress,

and indeed I see leftists arguing against anyone who points out that Islam is a serious problem for the West . We don't have to go much further than this thread to see that.

So, if someone does not support your fear and delusion about the threat of Islam, they support Islam? Lol, no.

I see progressive countries like Sweden and Germany hiding facts about criminal acts committed by Muslim refugees and migrants.

This is conspiracy theory territory.

Any protest against the massive inflow of Muslim migrants into Europe is considered racist and strongly counteracted by the leftists.

Again, feelings and not evidence. Mind you, many of the protests against migrants are based on racism and religious bigotry. Are you arguing that none of these protests are based on such fear?

Leftist NGOs are helping thousands of fresh Muslim migrants to enter Europe on a daily basis, they even work together with people smugglers.

Please provide evidence for this claim. It is entirely possible that you are misconstruing the identities of the people involved, and the demands they have.

So yes, I see leftists and Muslims acting together very often.
Leftists and Muslims = one front

No, you failed. Try again.

[JohnRawls]

Internationalism here has a different context though. For Marxists, there is a worldwide system with two international classes that are opposing each other. It is a development devoid of being good or evil. Simply something that happened:



For left-leaning liberals, there is a moral imperative to make everyone like themselves (this includes any number of good-natured imperial projects, the Americans always drowning on about being, "the last best hope," and, "a shining city on a hill," and all that). One is embracing reality and explaining how it works, the other is justifying it.



This is more interesting in a lot of ways. As with many things Marxist, this was up in the air in the 19th century, resolved by the Bolsheviks, and then torn asunder by the Stalin-Trotsky debate.

The big issue was whether these social issues were the result of the base or superstructure in a society and how they could be influenced. No less than Gramsci fiddled with Marx's model, so there is plenty to be tinkered with.

The initial issue was most clearly, in my opinion, laid out in the DeLeon (a pope of Marxism) and Connolly (Irish Marxist and martyr) debate. DeLeon had proposed, and maintained, a social program that involved sex, marriage, etc, etc. Connolly maintained that they lived in a capitalist society and needed to focus on the emancipation of the working class; that this would begin the change of whatever social issues came up.

The stuff about the Soviet "New Man" later was largely about the generation that would grow up not knowing a strictly capitalist society. Lenin in his interview with Zetkin (and by his actions) make clear he was still taking Connolly's line of allowing the changes in society to dictate the social issues. This changes under Stalin, who argues things have changed enough that the body politic should take control of the social mores. Naturally Trotsky disagrees and everyone argued about that for the rest of eternity.

This all said, within the Marxist sphere of influence, this is a question about what mechanisms alter society and its relations both practically and whatnot. I'm more of a Connollyist:



In this, the left-leaning liberals are somewhat inverted. They do not embrace the political and economic freedom of our class, but want only the, "faddists and cranks" elevated. Which, fine. In most ways they're more fun and at least not as cynically evil as the rest falling in line to lick their master's palm while the master strangles a worker.

This is a long way of saying that the liberal that leans a bit to the left and the socialist superficially will find themselves on the same sides of these issues, you're correct, but usually we arrive there by mere accident.

Perhaps, the motivation of the "left" in America might be different but they arrive to the same outcomes in some cases. Also the American "left" is not something that the real left can ignore nor should they. You can learn from them to a degree. The left in america might help you bring a system that is better then the ones that happened before.

A good idea/example from me can be that the "left" in America do not exclude the concept of Profit while the pure communism/capitalism does.(Or at least it has different definition, profit for society instead of monetary profit) If for example the factories or any other form of property is owned by the people then it does not mean that they should not be oriented at recieving profit. One of the major problems(Economic ones) of the Soviet Union and other communist states was that the factories could not produce goods in large quantity or quality although the know how and technology was there to do that. (Consumer goods. Soviet Union was the first country to invest such things as certain types of TV, Casset/Cd/DVD players etc) This happened roughly because most of the factories worked for the "plan" and not for their profit in their opinion. This way they could have received the funding to invest in their own production and expand it if needed.

Gorbachov and his ilk took notice of this but it was far too late and useless to fix anything. You can't make military factories produce dishwashers and bicycles efficiently if they were not designed for this in the first place.

This is not easy to implement but also not impossible. Although it does go in to the "Grey" Area of communism.

[Rugoz]

No, they're intellectually bankrupt because they ignore 150+ years of economic research.

[Ter]

Please provide evidence for this claim. It is entirely possible that you are misconstruing the identities of the people involved, and the demands they have

Well that is easy for you to say.
There is ample evidence that we see "progressives" demonstrating together with obvious minorities for open borders and unrestricted immigration. You can deny it and I am sure you will but I think very few people would agree with you.

Yes, feminists will often argue against men who tell them what they can and cannot wear. Again, this is not supporting Islam, but fighting against men telling them how to dress,

So at least some feminists will defend the niqab and burka fashion of our Islamist friends. And it is a myth to think that it is the women who voluntarily opt to be dressed like beekeepers.

So, if someone does not support your fear and delusion about the threat of Islam, they support Islam? Lol, no.

GW said it: if you are not with us, you are against us.
It is not a delusion, there is an imminent and actual threat in expansion of Islam territory by demographics and by proselytizing. They want to conquer the whole world.

This is conspiracy theory territory.

No, it is not a conspiracy. Germany and Sweden hide the criminality committed by immigrants. They want to avoid populist uprising. They call it hate speech if people object to the massive immigration allowed and encouraged by Frau Merkel.

Please provide evidence for this claim. It is entirely possible that you are misconstruing the identities of the people involved, and the demands they have.

There is ample evidence of the collusion between a number of NGOs and the migrant flows and almost certainly also with the people smugglers. As read on the BBC news web site.

[AFAIK]

More than 80% of an estimated 1,008,616 arrivals in 2015 were fleeing persecution (49%), war (25%) and famine (8%).

Your PDF wouldn't load but my impression is that most immigrants arrived via Turkey, which isn't a warzone, isn't suffering a famine and doesn't persecute Muslims. Some arrived via Libya and some via Russia so war, famine and persecution weren't problems for the majority of arrivals.

[ingliz]

Your PDF wouldn't load

Try this.

d’Angelo A., Blitz B., Kofman E., Montagna, N. (2017), Mapping Refugee Reception in
the Mediterranean: First Report of the Evi-Med Project

Available at: www.mdx.ac.uk/evimed

[Oxymandias]

@Ter

You are an irrational atheist acting on emotion who is pretending to be rational. But I don't have a problem with that and I never said I had a problem with that. I told you what I have a problem with and that is your disregarding of @The Immortal Goon points which you refuse to respond to.

I do not rely on the insults themselves, I accompany them with my points. Many of these insults are also not very extreme. They range from "dunderhead" to "moron" at worst. And they are not large statements in of themselves. It would only be a weakness if I only responded with insults, not if I just shove in a quick quip at you in there and responded to your points. If you are offended by these insults then I will stop.

I would like your sources on that. What proof do you have that all of these Muslims are economic migrants?

"the people smugglers". Now that made me laugh. Ok, do you have any solid proof that there are "people smugglers" who smuggle all "DA EVIL AND DIRTY MOOOSLIMS!!!" into the delicate and victimized Europe? No fucking driver is going to be driving through a bunch of countrysides all the way to Turkey for no cash at all. And there is certainly not enough people who are going to be willing to do that for 2.1 million people or else such a large scale project will be known.

You also refuse to mention that Turkey doesn't take immigrants and kills illegal immigrants and that Greece historically has an extensive immigration process which makes any form of immigration unviable. But whatever suits your emotions.

[Rugoz]

Many of these insults are also not very extreme. They range from "dunderhead" to "moron" at worst.

It's against the rules so don't fucking do it.

"the people smugglers". Now that made me laugh. Ok, do you have any solid proof that there are "people smugglers" who smuggle all "DA EVIL AND DIRTY MOOOSLIMS!!!" into the delicate and victimized Europe?

Here:

People smugglers capitalizing on the refugee crisis created by the Syrian conflict gleaned some $6 billion from those attempting to reach the European mainland in 2015, according to a report released by world policing bodies Tuesday.

Interpol and Europol, the international and European cross-border crime agencies, issued a report on “Migrant Smuggling Networks” that showed that 90 percent of the influx of refugees into the European Union is facilitated by smuggling networks in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

http://www.newsweek.com/smugglers-made- ... pol-461046

Now bury your head in shame.

[Decky]

I am aware that it would be in the interest of the capitalists to let in huge numbers of people from poor countries so they could work for lower wages and in inhuman conditions.
So how come it is the "progressives" who are shielding those illegal immigrants in the US and it is Trump and company that wants them deported and the borders under control?
I have discussed this same paradox several times already.

Progressives? You mean middle class centrists with posh accents? How should I know, I am on the left, you would have to ask one of them. You seem to be confused about what the left is, those people are not left wing, none of them have ever had a real job in a warehouse or on a building site or in a factory or on the docks. The only times they meet working class people is when they are beating their cook or gardener.

You point to people not on the left as proof for what the left do, it is childish and dishonest.

Perhaps. The only valid argument that Milo actually makes is that the so called "Left" in the US and World-Wide Left are both pro-immigration. Communism and Socialism have almost always been internationalist.

As for people pointing out the left are internationalist, so what? Being internationalist does not mean being pro immigration it means believing in countries supporting each other (for example, the military aid socialist nations provided to Vietnam to help them crush the Americans, or the aid the Soviets provided to Cuba).

If anything being an internationalist on the left necessitates an opposition to immigration as it retards development in the nations the workers are taken from. How is is possible for a nation in the undeveloped world to develop if all of their educated people simple run away to the west for more money? It would create brain drain similar to the one east Germany suffered when people would try to steal some of the best education in the world offered free of charge in East Germany just to flee to the west to profit from it it.

I would expand on the above by I have done it plenty of times before and right just ignore it rather than challenge it.

The only people who use internationalism to support immigration are the centre right who want to import millions more units of surplus labour and their families to keep pushing our wages down.

[The Immortal Goon]

What Decky says is correct.

The logic isn't even debated; it is cheaper to make immigrants do labour. If you can't make them do it, it's cheaper to have people abroad make things. All of this undercuts native labour. Thus the working class loses, and the ruling class wins in every scenario.

As mentioned previously, when Dumpy Trumpy and Mad May start shrilling screaming about how frightened they are of immigrants, it suits their needs. They have investments in making sure that the Chinese or Eastern Europeans are churning out cheaper garbage for a larger profit; and they have every reason to hope that all their followers get so triggered that they are more concerned with changing their piss-stained pants than looking to see where the thread in hand obviously leads.

And this has been obviously true for a century. When we look back at the Irish being the old source of this we roll our eyes and can't believe how stupid people were. And then reactionaries jump up and do the same thing.

As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account.

But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.

And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.

They do the same thing, while worshipping the so-called laws of economics that make it true.

The obvious mechanism within capitalism that makes this a problem is the problem. Capitalism is the problem.

Ranting and raving like a lunatic about how frightened you are, or what kind of leftist conspiracies lurk behind rightwing Muslims (while history exists) doesn't help anyone out.

Look up from your feelings. Look at how all these things work. Look at everything that's been written, recorded, said, and proven. This isn't that difficult of a jump...

[Oxymandias]

@Rugoz

I already said I wasn't going to do it anymore.

Wow, thats actually a thing! This is even more hilarious now! I can't believe what I am seeing right now. My mind is blown. Everything I said was shown to actually be a thing. I say that there isn't a large scale network and well then look, there is! This is amazing. I don't even know what to say, I just love this. I love how they call them people smugglers too. It's such a stupid sounding name that I can't help but smile at it. However where the fuck do these Syrian refugees get this money? You don't find 3,600 to 6, 500 dollars sitting on the floor. And how do they handle foreign currency? Syria's currency should be worth shit at this point, how do they even pay for his route?

Fortunately I, unlike Ter, am not intellectually insecure and admit that I may be wrong and that I don't know alot of things. The Syrian refugee crisis isn't a topic of interest for me and doesn't effect me. Therefore I know very little about it.

[Rich]

All the far left parties and groups want unrestricted mass Muslim immigration. All of them oppose all controls on Muslim immigration. And that includes Arthur Scargill's group. And none of them, I repeat none of them have said that this opposition to immigration controls just applies under "Capitalism". No the far left support unrestricted Muslim immigration under Capitalism and unrestricted Muslim immigration under Socialism.

[Oxymandias]

@Rich

What's the point in wasting your time generalizing and making fun of people when you can do something more productive? I can't really write a large paragraph about this because I'm doing something right now but I will tell you this. You will not convince anyone and no one will convince you. Both sides are misrepresenting and refusing to consider each others arguments. Nothing you say or do will hold any effect over anyone. The participants of this debate already have defined political decisions and are not inclined to change them in anyway regardless of whether they are right or wrong. You are one of these participants.

Therefore if you do not want to waste your time, leave the debate. If you want to continue to partake in such a useless circular debate and end up getting exhausted finally noticing that it's 1 pm and realizing you did nothing all day, don't say didn't I warned you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well that is easy for you to say.
There is ample evidence that we see "progressives" demonstrating together with obvious minorities for open borders and unrestricted immigration. You can deny it and I am sure you will but I think very few people would agree with you.

If there is ample evidence, as you claim, then it should be easy for you to provide some.

Also, I do not care how many people agree with me. The truth is true even if no one believes it, and a lie does not become truth even if it is popular.

So at least some feminists will defend the niqab and burka fashion of our Islamist friends. And it is a myth to think that it is the women who voluntarily opt to be dressed like beekeepers.

No, you have misunderstood. Feminists do not defend any one particular clothing style or article. They defend the right of a woamn to choose what she wants. If, as you say, no women are choosing it, then that means that feminists will support the right of a woman to not wear it.

GW said it: if you are not with us, you are against us.
It is not a delusion, there is an imminent and actual threat in expansion of Islam territory by demographics and by proselytizing. They want to conquer the whole world.

Shrub said a lot of stupid things.

If there is such a threat, please present evidence.

No, it is not a conspiracy. Germany and Sweden hide the criminality committed by immigrants. They want to avoid populist uprising. They call it hate speech if people object to the massive immigration allowed and encouraged by Frau Merkel.

Since it would require thousands of people with differing ideologies to all miraculously work together, and not say anything to anyone, then it certainly seems like a conspiracy theory.

There is ample evidence of the collusion between a number of NGOs and the migrant flows and almost certainly also with the people smugglers. As read on the BBC news web site.

Please provide a link. Thank you.

According to you, I also support people smuggling and open borders. I am a leftist, and progressive, and an immigrant. I am a veritable hat trick of your preconceived notions.

But you would be wrong to assume I support such things.

[Ter]

Please provide a link. Thank you.

Fellow poster Rugoz posted a link just a fewpostst ago, let me copy it for you:
http://www.newsweek.com/smugglers-made- ... pol-461046

No, you have misunderstood. Feminists do not defend any one particular clothing style or article. They defend the right of a woamn to choose what she wants. If, as you say, no women are choosing it, then that means that feminists will support the right of a woman to not wear it.

I did not misunderstand you.
Feminists say that women can chose to wear whatever they chose.
Muslim women say that it is their choice to follow beekeeper fashion but we all know that this choice they make is almost 100% coerced by their husbands, fathers and brothers. To think otherwise is naive.

Since it would require thousands of people with differing ideologies to all miraculously work together, and not say anything to anyone, then it certainly seems like a conspiracy theory.

It is not a conspiracy theory. I have seen it happening in my home country in Europe many years ago already. There was an unwritten policy not to name culprits of crime in order not to alienate the indigenous population. Before they would report the name of the criminals as for instance "Mohammed A." and suddenly they changed it to "M.A."
This kind of arrangement is reached without laws, it is an understanding between the Home ministry and the press. Since the recent massive Muslim immigration in Europe and the criminality resulting from it (rapes and violence) the press in Sweden and Germany do not mention or they minimalise such criminality and certainly do not mention that Muslim immigrants are the culprits. They mention "young men" or "youngsters".
You can sit there and ask for evidence but of course such evidence does not exist. But we are not stupid.

I am a veritable hat trick of your preconceived notions.

My conclusions are based on reality and information, not preconceived. Nowhere did I say that all progressives support people smuggling, you are just trying to score cheap points in the discussion. And I did not accuse you personally of anything. Let's keep it civilised.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fellow poster Rugoz posted a link just a fewpostst ago, let me copy it for you:
http://www.newsweek.com/smugglers-made- ... pol-461046

Please quote the text that supports your claim that the smugglers are working with leftist NGOs.

I did not misunderstand you.
Feminists say that women can chose to wear whatever they chose.

As long as we agree that this is a different thing than supporting the niqab or hijab, as you previously claimed.

Muslim women say that it is their choice to follow beekeeper fashion but we all know that this choice they make is almost 100% coerced by their husbands, fathers and brothers. To think otherwise is naive.

For some Muslim women, this is certainly the case, and in such a situation, feminists would support the woman's right to not wear one.

This is actually 100% opposed to your claim that they would support these articles of clothing.

It is not a conspiracy theory. I have seen it happening in my home country in Europe many years ago already. There was an unwritten policy not to name culprits of crime in order not to alienate the indigenous population. Before they would report the name of the criminals as for instance "Mohammed A." and suddenly they changed it to "M.A."
This kind of arrangement is reached without laws, it is an understanding between the Home ministry and the press. Since the recent massive Muslim immigration in Europe and the criminality resulting from it (rapes and violence) the press in Sweden and Germany do not mention or they minimalise such criminality and certainly do not mention that Muslim immigrants are the culprits. They mention "young men" or "youngsters".
You can sit there and ask for evidence but of course such evidence does not exist. But we are not stupid.

Right, so why do the thousands of people keep their mouth shut about it despite the fact that they apparently have no reason to?

Let me guess, it is because the leftists and the progressives and the Muslims all control the media and the government.

My conclusions are based on reality and information, not preconceived. Nowhere did I say that all progressives support people smuggling, you are just trying to score cheap points in the discussion. And I did not accuse you personally of anything. Let's keep it civilised.

Okay. So, now we see you are changing your claim from leftists and progressives support Islam to "some, but not all leftists and progressives do". This may even be true, as there are almost certainly leftist and progressive Muslims. But these are a vanishingly small minority of progressives, leftists and Muslims.

[Ter]

Please quote the text that supports your claim that the smugglers are working with leftist NGOs.

Italy migrant crisis: Charities 'colluding' with smugglers

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39686239

Migrant NGOs accused of colluding with human traffickers in Mediterranean

Doctors without Borders (MSF) is under investigation over allegations it facilitates illegal immigration as debate rages in Italy following accusations, backed by the government, that NGOs are colluding with Libyan people smugglers.
Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that Italian prosecutors have begun investigating MSF for rescuing migrants stranded at sea allegedly without notifying Italy’s coast guard.

MSF crew are accused of telling migrants not to cooperate with Italian and EU border authorities during “debriefing” when they arrive on land, according to the newspaper.

Investigating Sicilian prosecutor Ambrogio Cartosio told the Senate Defense Commission on Wednesday that several members of multiple humanitarian organizations are under investigation on suspicion they may be working with people smugglers.

The newspaper, however, stated that the prosecutor didn’t state the name any particular NGO.

"The Trapani prosecutors' office has current investigations concerning the possible crime of abetting illegal migration focused not on NGOs per se, but individuals belonging to NGOs," he said.

Migrant rescue charities in the Mediterranean have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks with the Italian government backing prosecutors’ claims “100 percent” that Libyan traffickers and rescuers were in contact, offering a “taxi” service bringing migrants to Italy.

Prosecutors have made claims that rescue boats turned off their transponders and turned on lamps to show migrant boats their location

.
https://www.rt.com/news/388031-msf-crew ... nt-rescue/

Right, so why do the thousands of people keep their mouth shut about it despite the fact that they apparently have no reason to?

They don't need to keep quiet about it, it is common knowledge. There is no conspiracy.

Okay. So, now we see you are changing your claim from leftists and progressives support Islam to "some, but not all leftists and progressives do".

Of course. When we say something about a group, we do not mean 100% of that group.

[ingliz]

Charities 'colluding' with smugglers

Carmelo Zuccaro told La Stampa (in Italian) phone calls were being made from Libya to rescue vessels.

In an interview with La Repubblica newspaper, 28 April 2017, Zuccaro admitted he has “no proofs” of the allegations.