#refugeeswelcome

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Anyway this is a side topic, the point was the IRA killed more than Muslim terrorists in the UK, more Irish immigrants have been involved in and carried out terrorist attacks than muslim immigrants. We however did not implement any policies around this to curb Irish Immigration. [/quote]

Straw man argument.

Quote me the poster on this thread who originally brought up the idea about curbing Irish Immigration.

Maybe it wasn’t deemed necessary because there wasn’t over 17000 people flooding into England overwhelming their country all at once.

What if over 17000 Christians suddenly moved into the Middle East? Do you think there wouldn’t be some kind of effort to curb this? Hell, the Gulf States won’t even take care of the Palestinians, let alone the Syrians. When the Palestinians moved into Jordan, they rolled tanks over them, remember that?

202

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Wait … Are you denying we funded Islamic extremists with billions of dollars, gave them weapons and political support?

Ever heard of operation cyclone?
[/quote]

Operation Cyclone? What would have happened had the Russians not taken “the bait” and not invaded Afghanistan? What if they just armed Nur Muhammad Taraki and let him tackle the insurgents?

Also you don’t think Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, & The Pakistani ISI didn’t have a hand in training the Afghan rebels?

Furthermore, the main ally of the United States was
Ahmad Shah Massoud, a stanch enemy of the Taliban and the man credited by the Wall Street Journal of “winning the Cold War” by defeating the Soviets. He was so pro-Western & anti-Taliban that he was assassinated a few days before the 9-11 attacks because Bin Laden used his death to gain support from the Taliban and because had he remained in power he possibly could have been used by the US to destroy both the Taliban & Al-Qaeda.

Massoud was the ruler of the Northern Alliance who rolled over both groups at the start of the US invasion and, had we not been side tracked by the Iraq war, the Taliban & Al-Qaeda possibly would have been soundly defeated.

And still, who could have predicted that Bin Laden would have created Al-Qaeda and turned on the United States once the Soviets had left Afghanistan?

Bin Laden was pissed because when Saddam invaded Kuwait he wanted his army of Holy Warriors to be invited by the Saudis to fight the Iraqis. The Saudis instead invited the American armed forces to Arabia to push Saddam out of Kuwait during the first Gulf War, something Bin Laden saw as blasphemous. Who could have predicted those turn of events?

But it’s easy to blame America for everything I guess.

[/quote]

Who could of predicted Osama Bin Laden, the man who was openly calling for Jihad against Israel and America and meeting with Saudi Sheiks so radical they were the enemies of the house of Saud for money to fund the most extreme sects of the Islamic Jihad while in and out of Afghanistan, would turn against the US?

Pretty much anyone with any clue about who Osama Bin Laden was?

As for this claim the Saudi’s are funding extremists, people need to understand something, the Jihadists hate the House of Saud just as much as they hate America, in many ways worse, because they consider them apostates.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular launched a campaign against the kingdom, trying to ignite a civil war (Anyone interested read Path of blood on AQAP), some wealthy Saudi’s fund Al Qaeda, but this dumb notion the government supports them, is something only people who have no idea about the history or reality of Al Qaeda say.

The House of Saud want Al Qaeda crushed, there is popular support for groups like Al Qaeda amongst the public, who are on the whole even more religiously conservative than the Government (many Saudi’s consider the fact TV and pictures are allowed as a sign of regime apostasy), famous mainstream sheiks lie Bin Baz and the Takfiri Imams have openly praised Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda are a threat to the regime, they have goals of toppling them, they have support amongst the population, they had many of the nations top Islamic figures fund and support them in the AQAP campaign.

The notion the saudi state is funding their most hated enemy, who pose a real threat to them is bizarre.

203

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Al Qaeda did have goals:

  1. All non muslims out of the Arabian Peninsula
  2. Stop funding Israel
  3. Stop funding secular dictators
  4. Stay out of the muslim sphere of influence.
    [/quote]

Who the hell cares about their goals? How exactly are we “stealing” their oil? Without oil money their economies would collapse. [/quote]

I was responding to the poster who said they had no negotiable goals. They did, they offered terms. I personally would not have negotiated with them, but this idea they can’t be negotiated with isn’t accurate. As I provided sources for, where they offered a truce and negotiation points based on geopolitical aims.

As for who cares about their goals, who cares about the IRA’s goals, who cares about the American revolutionaries goals? It is pretty wise to understand the reality of the enemy, their real greivences, their perceived grievances and their ideology. So anyone interested in ending conflict cares about everyone else’s goals.

Now for the oil, who steals the oil? Who installs or supports dictators who give them resources? The west has openly overthrown democratic leaders, for example in Iran and installed a puppet dictator who goes back on the elected policy of oil nationalisation and is in the hands of the west. The people get angry, they support Islamist resistance to the dictator, they take over, they win.

Or how about Our support for Mubarak, the fact our intelligence agencies gave Gadaffi names and intel on resistence figures in the west and in Libya, how about our support for and arming of Sadam, while he was gassing the Kurds with the wepaons we sold him? How about our support for him in the war of aggression against Iran, where he used the chemical weapons we sold him to gas Iranians?

How about our protectorate the House of Saud, whom we support, sell weapons to, who we claim as our ally while claiming to support democracy?

Are you really going to claim the western plundering and control of the middle east is a fabrication? Denialists are just s bad as their counterparts, the chomskyists. One side claims the U.S has not got a history of neo-colonialism, the other uses that history to claim the U.S is in 2015 morally equivalent to Islamic State.

What stolen oil? What dictators? What foreign policy for the last 100 years? And we wonder why there are so many people in the middle east willing to fight us. It isn’t all just religious doctrine, these groups have millions of young men, living under western dictators, living in countries where we overthrew their leaders or economically manipulated their economies. If you blame it all on religion, or all on grievences you will never find a solution to the conflict.

1.Condemnation of Religion and its role in the problem is necessary
2. Actually admitting people have legitimate grievances is necessary
3. Not denying the history of western neo-colonialism is necessary
4. Dialogue is necessary

Anything else is a circle jerk of wilful ignorance.

204

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Now for the oil, who steals the oil? Who installs or supports dictators who give them resources? The west has openly overthrown democratic leaders, for example in Iran and installed a puppet dictator who goes back on the elected policy of oil nationalisation and is in the hands of the west. The people get angry, they support Islamist resistance to the dictator, they take over, they win.
[/quote]

What about the British intelligence who also openly overthrew the democratic leader? No hate for them? What about the countries who “steal” Iran’s oil today or arm it with advanced weaponry? No hate for them? Perfectly fine that they sell arms to Iran that end up in the hands of terrorists who use it to kill Americans & Israelis? Right?

205

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

The notion the saudi state is funding their most hated enemy, who pose a real threat to them is bizarre.

[/quote]

America is Al-Qaeda’s most hated enemy also, right?

Don’t understand how this is bizarre, yet you claim America is doing the same thing & it’s perfectly understandable to you.

To me, this is bizarre.

In the voice of South Park’s Mr.Mackey:

America’s Bad, Mkay!!

Sorry about the hijack, let’s get back to the IRA and the migrant problem…

206

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Now for the oil, who steals the oil? Who installs or supports dictators who give them resources? The west has openly overthrown democratic leaders, for example in Iran and installed a puppet dictator who goes back on the elected policy of oil nationalisation and is in the hands of the west. The people get angry, they support Islamist resistance to the dictator, they take over, they win.
[/quote]

What about the British intelligence who also openly overthrew the democratic leader? No hate for them? What about the countries who “steal” Iran’s oil today or arm it with advanced weaponry? No hate for them? Perfectly fine that they sell arms to Iran that end up in the hands of terrorists who use it to kill Americans & Israelis? Right?[/quote]

If you were not blinded by defensiveness about your nation you would understand when I say the west, the wests past neo-colonialism I am talking about Britain too. And France, all the western powers. You seem to think me criticising my own nation means I somehow love its enemies.

207

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

The notion the saudi state is funding their most hated enemy, who pose a real threat to them is bizarre.

[/quote]

America is Al-Qaeda’s most hated enemy also, right?

Don’t understand how this is bizarre, yet you claim America is doing the same thing & it’s perfectly understandable to you.

To me, this is bizarre.

In the voice of South Park’s Mr.Mackey:

America’s Bad, Mkay!!

Sorry about the hijack, let’s get back to the IRA and the migrant problem…

[/quote]

America funded Foreign Jihadists who had no possibility of overthrowing them, no base support for Islamic Jihad in America. Also no one said America funded Al Qaeda, they funded the mujahideen.

Saudi Arabia however sees Al Qaeda as a threat, Saudi Arabia had some level of popular support in Saudi Arabia, had the backing of senior clerics, had the ability to infiltrate the kingdom, start up cells comprised of Saudi’s and launch an extensive challenge to the regime, almost managing to ignite a civil war.

The Saudi government hates Al Qaeda and rightfully fears them and their presence in the Arabian Peninsula.

As far back as the 1990’s the regime was trying to stop the Ummah and clerics from giving money to the Afghan Taliban and focus on the Balkan Jihad, because they were afraid of the supporting of the Taliban and their extremist allies like Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden had to send some of his most trusted comrades to Saudi Arabia to raise funds secretly after the Saudi support money stopped.

So yes even though it was dumb America funding the Mujahideen was a geo-political option. The Saudi regime funding Al Qaeda would be fucking bonkers.

209

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
America funded Foreign Jihadists who had no possibility of overthrowing them, no base support for Islamic Jihad in America. Also no one said America funded Al Qaeda, they funded the mujahideen.
[/quote]

Exactly what I have been saying.
.

210

It seems this particular desperate individual fleeing war and destruction is sorely disappointed by the carbohydrate heavy meals provided by my country and decided to move on towards Germany after such a horrible affront (starts at 0:44).

211

The situation is a complete disaster.
Top German politicians have shown how ignorant and incapable they are.

But most worrisome ist this not, as modern european politics were always full of spineless, small-minded imbeciles.

What is truly troubling is the amount of media garbage that has been distributed relentlessly upon the masses.
It is rather understandable that conspiracy afficionados have gone nuts because it certainly looks a quaking duck with a smoking gun standing next to an elephant in the room.

The disparity between propaganda and what is going on has never been that huge in post war Germany.

Insanity.

I could rant on but this is, at least for Europe, a shockingly mismanaged and disgraceful event full of treasonous behaviour, unspeakable incompetence on all levels and lies, lies and more lies.

212

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

Do you not see any connection between the way the refugee’s are acting and their treatment by the authorities in many places like Hungary? Desperate people tend to act rather desperately. For example when you see on the news police beating the shit out of people holding babies and children with Saliva and tears streaming down their face from tear gas, it does not seem like they are rioting over nothing.

Some of the police actions have been gross overreactions. Especially the baton beating they gave to that elderly man holding a small child. Other stuff like the conditions at the camps as was filmed which caused popular outrage seem to point to reasonable anger from the refugees.[/quote]

I can’t speak for Hungary but I have to stress that here migrants are fighting AMONG THEMSELVES. Local police are under strict orders not to use force, as can be seen from the meek reactions of the officers in the clips above.

Even the guy who hit a reported in the head with a rock has not been detained.

The migrants are VERY belligerent, on the evening of the first day the problems started when they refused to board a train for a detention center, insisting on being driven in buses instead and threatening to tear the railway station down.

When they protest, they tend to refuse food and water distributed by NGOs and Red Cross volunteers. This usually means that men prevent women and children from getting provisions.

As I’ve worked in the Gulf and speak a smattering of Arabic I spoke to a upper middle class family from Damascus - they’re nice people but it’s incredible, it’s like Germany is hard-wired into their brain. One of the biggest problems I foresee is that they have wildly unrealistic expectations about life in Germany and the amount of help they will get.

I think Germany will have to deal with thousands of disaffected immigrants down the line.
[/quote]

I think this is the most balanced account of a Syrian refugee in Germany. Read some of his points of response, he addresses most of your worries, some of them he is more close to your point of view than mine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3kos3j/iama_syrian_immigrant_in_germany_ama/[/quote]

4- “Are there ISIS jihadists among the refugees?”
Yes, that is quite a high possibility.

I would like to point out that this was my worry in the first place, and it has been verified by a Syrian as a legitimate concern.

“3- “You are coming in mass numbers, you’re backwards and will commit many crimes…”
Yup, many people came in mass numbers, but we won’t commit crimes, why do you think all these people are criminals? if in Syria, where the judicial and executive branches are well corrupted, and poverty is wide spread, crime wasn’t common at all, at least in my region, so why exactly would these people have a change of heart in a more welcoming and safe country?”

This response does not engender much confidence, either.

If these people are not processed properly, this will be the mother of all bad decisions. [/quote]

i don’t think anyone is saying there is no threat that IS will send men over, the issue is there are elements claiming large amounts of these desperate people are actually jihadists and that we should not let them seek refuge in our lands.

Some Irish immigrants were involved in Republican plots in England. That does not mean the logical or moral thing to do is ban all Irish immigrants from settling in England, because that sort of collective punishment is bigoted and is not compatible with the great cultural identity of the west, which despite all its bad actions in the past is the best hope of the world.

[/quote]

Processing is not a collective punishment, it is basic, rational immigration policy. Besides, the differences between the IRA and Islamism have been mentioned before in this thread. One is apocalyptic, the other is not. [/quote]

IRA bombings and other terrorist attacks have killed more people in England than Muslim terrorism, and was just as random regarding the victims, such as toddlers, pensioners etc killed. Complete innocents. We didn’t use these atrocities to implement such policies against the irish settling here. Many of whom were refugees from the violence in Ireland.

That does not even include all the other terror attacks in England nevermind the ones in NI.[/quote]

It occurs to me that there’s no reason to try and wake you up from your fantasy world.

If you want those refugees in your country, you’re more than welcome to them.

Hopefully, the U.S. will have more sense.
[/quote]

Seeing as the US lead the war that caused most of these people to become displaced, I would of thought Americans might have the common decency to take some off the hands of Germany and the rest of Europe. Coalition of the willing my arse.

Launch wars, create a vacuum, displace millions then just wash your hands of the whole thing and take no responsibility for housing the displaced and refugees looking to escape the region American intervention made 10 times worse.

God bless America!

213

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Seeing as the US lead the war that caused most of these people to become displaced, I would of thought Americans might have the common decency to take some off the hands of Germany and the rest of Europe. Coalition of the willing my arse.

Launch wars, create a vacuum, displace millions then just wash your hands of the whole thing and take no responsibility for housing the displaced and refugees looking to escape the region American intervention made 10 times worse.

God bless America!
[/quote]

We lead the war? So, these migrants are Iraqi, & Afghanis? And all this time I thought they were Syrian.

How did we lead this war in Syria? Were we somehow responsible for The Arab Spring as well? Just because we foolishly supported it does not mean we somehow lead it.

America can now control the weather? Did we somehow cause a drought which brought about civil unrest in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/drought-helped-caused-syrias-war-will-climate-change-bring-more-like-it/

What vacuum? Assad’s still in charge. The Russians are backing him up. We are talking about Syria here, right?

A few posts ago you claimed we do not support Al-Qaeda, yet if we lead the war in Syria, doesn’t it mean we support both ISIS, al-Nursa, both off shoots of Al-Qaeda?

Your views seem to change post to post with one common anti-American denominator.

214

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Seeing as the US lead the war that caused most of these people to become displaced, I would of thought Americans might have the common decency to take some off the hands of Germany and the rest of Europe. Coalition of the willing my arse.

Launch wars, create a vacuum, displace millions then just wash your hands of the whole thing and take no responsibility for housing the displaced and refugees looking to escape the region American intervention made 10 times worse.

God bless America!
[/quote]

We lead the war? So, these migrants are Iraqi, & Afghanis? And all this time I thought they were Syrian.

How did we lead this war in Syria? Were we somehow responsible for The Arab Spring as well? Just because we foolishly supported it does not mean we somehow lead it.

America can now control the weather? Did we somehow cause a drought which brought about civil unrest in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/drought-helped-caused-syrias-war-will-climate-change-bring-more-like-it/

What vacuum? Assad’s still in charge. The Russians are backing him up. We are talking about Syria here, right?

A few posts ago you claimed we do not support Al-Qaeda, yet if we lead the war in Syria, doesn’t it mean we support both ISIS, al-Nursa, both off shoots of Al-Qaeda?

Your views seem to change post to post with one common anti-American denominator.[/quote]

How did the Iraq war, which lead to the rise of AQI and a civil war, from which emerged ISIS, who also set up base in Syria during the civil war there and is now the main rebel force in the form of Al Nusra because of the Iraq war? If you are this unaware of the facts then I don’t know how you can feel confident enough to post this drivel.

We funded Al Nusra and Islamic Jihad in Syria, without our funding the rebels would of been crushed over 2 years ago. Just like the Libyan Islamists would of been crushed without our air support, funding and arming. Are you actually unaware of these basic facts?

And yes, the Arab spring, which was basically the population rising up against for the most part, western backed dictators, was because of the western foreign policy of the last 100 years, which involved overthrowing democratic leaders or funding insurgencies to topple them or supporting coups which installed western backed dictators who were basically client states of the U.S and the west.

As for Afghanistan, yes the war there has also created refugees, war tends to do that.

215

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Seeing as the US lead the war that caused most of these people to become displaced, I would of thought Americans might have the common decency to take some off the hands of Germany and the rest of Europe. Coalition of the willing my arse.

Launch wars, create a vacuum, displace millions then just wash your hands of the whole thing and take no responsibility for housing the displaced and refugees looking to escape the region American intervention made 10 times worse.

God bless America!
[/quote]

We lead the war? So, these migrants are Iraqi, & Afghanis? And all this time I thought they were Syrian.

How did we lead this war in Syria? Were we somehow responsible for The Arab Spring as well? Just because we foolishly supported it does not mean we somehow lead it.

America can now control the weather? Did we somehow cause a drought which brought about civil unrest in Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/drought-helped-caused-syrias-war-will-climate-change-bring-more-like-it/

What vacuum? Assad’s still in charge. The Russians are backing him up. We are talking about Syria here, right?

A few posts ago you claimed we do not support Al-Qaeda, yet if we lead the war in Syria, doesn’t it mean we support both ISIS, al-Nursa, both off shoots of Al-Qaeda?

Your views seem to change post to post with one common anti-American denominator.[/quote]

No I claimed we did not fund Al Qaeda, the popular conspiracy is that the U.S funded Al Qaeda and they were basically a US creation. We did not fund or train Al Qaeda, they arose from within the Mujahideen we funded in Afghanistan, with most of the top members being Afghan vets.

We however have, over the last few years overtly and covertly funded Al Qaeda in Syria and Libya. This is now out in the open and as we are seeing some like David Patraeus are calling for an official teaming up with Al Nusra in Syria!

216

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

No I claimed we did not fund Al Qaeda, the popular conspiracy is that the U.S funded Al Qaeda and they were basically a US creation. We did not fund or train Al Qaeda, they arose from within the Mujahideen we funded in Afghanistan, with most of the top members being Afghan vets.
[/quote]

So, if we did not fund Al-Qaeda, how are we at fault for what the Mujahideen movement evolved into?

[quote]
We however have, over the last few years overtly and covertly funded Al Qaeda in Syria and Libya. This is now out in the open and as we are seeing some like David Patraeus are calling for an official teaming up with Al Nusra in Syria!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/david-petraeus-bright-idea-give-terrorists-weapons-to-beat-isis[/quote]

David Patraeus means nothing now.

The article doesn’t support what you said. It says IF we support Al-Nursa it’s a bad move.

Also, the article says we are bombing extremist groups in Syria. Are we bombing them, or aiding them? Which is it?

217

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

How did the Iraq war, which lead to the rise of AQI and a civil war, from which emerged ISIS, who also set up base in Syria during the civil war there and is now the main rebel force in the form of Al Nusra because of the Iraq war? If you are this unaware of the facts then I don’t know how you can feel confident enough to post this drivel.[/quote]

America is bad because it overthrew a dictator in Iraq.

America is bad because it provided air support to overthrow a dictator in Libya.

America is bad because it supported and backed dictators.

Talk about drivel…

218

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

No I claimed we did not fund Al Qaeda, the popular conspiracy is that the U.S funded Al Qaeda and they were basically a US creation. We did not fund or train Al Qaeda, they arose from within the Mujahideen we funded in Afghanistan, with most of the top members being Afghan vets.
[/quote]

So, if we did not fund Al-Qaeda, how are we at fault for what the Mujahideen movement evolved into?

Because the Mujahideen became the Taliban not Al Qaeda for the millionth time. Also we funded and trained the Mujahideen lots of that funding and weaponry went to people like Osama Bin Laden where he amassed a following and popular support in the muslim world.

[quote] David Patraeus means nothing now.

The article doesn’t support what you said. It says IF we support Al-Nursa it’s a bad move.

Also, the article says we are bombing extremist groups in Syria. Are we bombing them, or aiding them? Which is it? [/quote]

We did support Al Nusra and IS (yes genius yet again IS are in Syria) and Islamic Jihad in Syria and Libya. We openly funded extremist groups who were involved in the civil wars. We then stopped funding them after we had rescued them from the brink of being crushed to being the main rebel groups in the region controlling massive amounts of territory.

Then they predictably started beheading westerners and doing what anyone with half a brain knew they would do. The U.S then started bombing IS and Al Nusra, after funding and arming them.

Yet again a masterstroke of blowback from the U.S and GB. Now people like Petraeus and other people are calling for a reliance with Al Qaeda in a fucking tom and jerry plan to get Al Nusra fighters to defect to a less extreme (but still extreme) Islamist group who Al Nusra recently smashed.

219

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

How did the Iraq war, which lead to the rise of AQI and a civil war, from which emerged ISIS, who also set up base in Syria during the civil war there and is now the main rebel force in the form of Al Nusra because of the Iraq war? If you are this unaware of the facts then I don’t know how you can feel confident enough to post this drivel.[/quote]

America is bad because it overthrew a dictator in Iraq.

America is bad because it provided air support to overthrow a dictator in Libya.

America is bad because it supported and backed dictators.

Talk about drivel…

[/quote]

So America supported and gave Sadam chemical weapons and sold him arms and stayed an ally of his while he was gassing kurds and invading Iran and gassing people. Then we suddenly became anti-dictator and overthrew him and that makes us the good guys and our intentions benign and good?

America and the UK dealt with Gadafi, gave him info on Libyan dissidents in Libya and the west, colluded with him, then overthrew him and we get to claim moral ground on this? Again, are you being purposefully ignorant?

You can’t be this dense. Holy shit. You are trying to maintain a willfull ignorance so you don’t have to condemn your country and its actions and keep this rose tinted view where we are the good guys.

220

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

So America supported and gave Sadam chemical weapons and sold him arms and stayed an ally of his while he was gassing kurds and invading Iran and gassing people. Then we suddenly became anti-dictator and overthrew him and that makes us the good guys and our intentions benign and good?

America and the UK dealt with Gadafi, gave him info on Libyan dissidents in Libya and the west, colluded with him, then overthrew him and we get to claim moral ground on this? Again, are you being purposefully ignorant?

You can’t be this dense. Holy shit. You are trying to maintain a willfull ignorance so you don’t have to condemn your country and its actions and keep this rose tinted view where we are the good guys.[/quote]

You miss my point.

I never claimed our country are the good guys. You really don’t know what my opinions are regarding any of this, actually…

I merely pointed out that in YOUR opinion we are wrong no matter what we do.