Please try and understand affection of European neighbours as you would feel for your US confederates.

It is not perfect, but it is real.

I love my Europeans neighbours, and being pretty much alone with the refugee crises - with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan Iraq (!) and other close neighbours is hard.

So we do what me must. Only wish it were more than Europe and Syrian neighbours only.

I lived and worked in the US - and loved it. Only with likes of you I think - if you do not accept war refugees, don't start wars, maybe?

What is this 21st century white guilt gibberish I'm hearing? Since when in this lovely brutal world does starting a war force you to take on refugees?

You might want to check your logic.

Animals and savage brutes, sometimes, the only thing they comprehend is raw violence, chaotic strikes, innocent victims, exactly like the ones they cause (by blind bombings). Honestly, i pretty much enjoyed that Grand Theft Auto heist going live, too bad they scored only one civilian. Yet, somehow, i seriously doubt they caused any real harm or psychological pressure to any barbarian; in that neo-Neanderthal brute culture, women have a very low social standing and are regularly abused, killed, attacked by chemicals even (see women acid attacks for example, female circumcision and child brides), even by their own.

Tony Blair hoped to be remembered as a great prime minister for UK, but he is for the main remembered as the leader that lied to the parliament.

Are you telling me that "Mainilan laukaukset" -or Shelling of Mainila - was fault of Finland? My logic tells me: not. It was wrong.

Soviet Union, based on Rippentrop treaty, staged that to start offensive unto Finland that lead into Winter war.

Study here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

Soviet Union got away with it, to an extent (Karelia and Lappland areas lost). But so did Finland to a great cost.

So, sorry, HijacK - fictitious shelling or weapons of mass destruction to start a war, I dislike. I would have thought Soviet Union pummelled Romania badly enough for you to sympathize with my logic.

You can be as sorry as you want, especially since we were never pummeled, a rather laughable concept, really, since we were among the few that refused to be assimilated. So no, I guess they haven't since your logic is fallacious and filled with philosophical nonsense that goes against the very nature of the world.

Once again, starting a war does not force one to take on refugees. Basic common sense that you are lacking and going around with irrelevant war information.

Both my grandfather's fought post Mainilan laukaukset - or Mainila Shelling, during Winter War. And I assure you that my grandmothers suffered greatly, too.

It was quite cruel.

I am really amazed that a Romanian would be pro Soviet Union. Can you tell me why?

My both grandfathers fought the Winter war, and continuation war - not because they wanted to kill, but they had to.

They suffered, but I cannot tell you how much I admire them. Finnishness is not about killing easily, but doing what one must do.

So Mainila Shelling - no false take on. Why would you go there, really?

You must be quite in a crepuscular zone to think I am pro Soviet Union. You do realize I study and live in the United States of America, aka America, right? Do you see what I told you by sharing this information with you? Exactly how pointing at a faulty logic makes me pro Soviet Union?

Let me put it in broad terms:

I am a general/king/voivode/domn/shah/whatever. In a modern world where economies are intertwined and what not I start a war because X reason. War ends. My country is ok. Opposing country not so much. Yada yada. Separatist movements start. People fight between themselves. Fight for supremacy and power. Ironically, people start fleeing that country. And they decide they want to come to mine because who knows why, lots of welfare and good living. Who in the name of Alexander the Great forces me to take on refugees? Who in this world says that I am responsible to destabilizing my own country and harm my own people and economy to take on an extra baggage? My duty is to my people, not to some randoms in this world that fled their OWN country because they didn't want to deal with it. As a political leader I would simply accept the prospect of trouble in my own borders by accepting some ridiculous number of refugees. To put it in the context of real world and of this thread, by accepting some 800.000 able bodied men in my country, I begin a cultural shock and long list of expenses that I must pay for these people, and greatly contribute to the unemployment rate. Do you see what happens? Yeah, nothing good. I blur national lines and cultural values for being a better human being to others, while simultaneously being a shitty asshole to my own people.
Tell me, do you think there is some unwritten law that says starting a war forces you to be humanitarian afterwards?

Oh, and what the hell do your grandfathers have to do with... anything for that matter? This discussion has gonna hella' bizarro up to the point I don't think we're talking about the same thing anymore.

Well, I already worked there, but that is not the point. Only the idea that pointing out Mainila shelling might be questionable for you. Why, I could not say. And you identifying as Romanian somewhat pains me, more. But that is European, for better I think, or worse, maybe for you.

I have absolutely no idea what Mainila shelling is, nor do I care at the moment. Questionable? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. You went in circles about a simple concept which I pointed out from the very beginning lacked logic.

And no, thank you. I don't identify as anything, as I am not a liberal plebe who needs the prospect of "control" to feel secure. I was born and lived the majority of my life in Romania. I am Romanian. I don't "identify" as anything, because I don't have the fragile mind of a spoiled brat to be self conscious about myself. 120% Dacian and Wallachian. I live where I live because I came here to study, make lots of money. Nothing more, nothing less.

I actually do not think you are that unkind to Finland. I'd be sad. I admit that Scandi-Estonia matters the most, but Romania matters as much as other European partners.

And besides, to say that Soviet Union attacking Finland is confusing soft of thing... It's not to me. To you maybe?

News site I follow did a video on this yesterday. Articles are old, but thought it was interesting.

http://www.todayonline.com/world/europe/law-raids-may-have-allowed-paris-suspect-escape

http://www.todayonline.com/world/europe/belgian-law-night-time-raids-may-have-allowed-suspect-escape

http://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-terror-attacks-questioned-salah-abdeslam-for-only-one-hour-before-terror-attacks/

What are you talking about? This discussion is seriously in dire need of some sense.

We went from a basic statement such as this:

To talking about the Soviet Union attacking Finland, something about Scandinavia and Estonia (what?), and now about Romania and other European partners? I need a translator. I'm not making the connections here.

Nope. I still don't get it. I don't understand a thing of what you're saying. I don't see how that is correlated with the original point I tackled and quoted. I don't understand how that is correlated with the issue of refugees in Europe. I do not understand how that is correlated to any other discussion on this thread, honestly. I don't understand the correlation between Romania and Finland. I simply don't get what you're saying.
As a matter of fact, I think you're just trolling and you have no point. I think you realized the error in the original argument and now you're just spewing random words and enumerating random conflicts in order to derail the discussion.

I'm out. This is not worth my time. I'd rather return to reading The Divine Comedy.