My opinion is that it depends on what the reason X you mentioned is. If it was an unprovoked attack by you in this example, you are responsible for the consequences.
And lets not forget that helping people in desperate situations is a decent thing and also part of the Christian religion - if you're religious.

But this sentence of yours
and your avatar which shows, if I'm not mistaken, Robert Downey jr., the actor who plays Tony Stark in Iron Man, implies that you embrace the neo-liberal ideology about everyone being only responsible for themself.

btw.:
Shelling of Mainila
But it actually would have been TStaels job to link this.

As far as I know I reacted to you, but ho-hiip, I ... trolled! Per you.

So be it.

But it really bothers me, let it be said, if you would not have affection between Finland and Romania.

A war has consequences for all the factions involved. Why due to internal strife would I as a leader have to take care of the people of my former enemies? There is virtually no power that stops me from closing the borders. And if they come knocking with violence, I shall respond with violence.

Up until this point in time, there has never been a time in history that any political leaders have done what you imply, at least not to my knowledge.

Not religious, and yes, it's a decent thing to do, but true leaders are not supposed to be decent people towards everyone in the world. To paraphrase Machiavelli, a leader has the duty to maintain the existence and welfare of his state and people first and foremost. Emphasis on "his."

I'm neither liberal, nor conservative, and responsibility comes in many shapes and forms depending on position. However, one should always remember whom he is responsible for first and foremost. I'm not trying to bash on taking refugees. I'm trying to explain the sheer mentality of "you start a war, you have to take refugees" is beyond flawed and simply ridiculous.

I see. I still don't get how that is correlated to his original point about refugees.

I am normal European most like And loving my neighbours.

Maybe being a Finn is bit funny unto you. I refuse to think alike. It would bother me, really, if Romanians thought us Finns inferior, rather than bros and sis.

That's right.

I'm not questioning the right for self-defence. But I'm also able to see that desperate people are likely to do stupid things.

I'm with you that democratic leaders are responsible for their people foremost. But, let's be honest: leaders neither democratically elected nor especially non-democratic leaders really care for the will of the majority of their people. At least in my perception.

In general I'm with you. But wars are usually started by leaders, not necessarily by the people. And so it is more likely that the people, maybe only a minority but still, try to show mercy and empathy to the victims of the actions of their leaders.

I don't know. Ask TStael.

Edit:
WTF! I never wrote that and I certainly never replied to you before. Either you have a really strong need for attention or you are just a troll like HijacK assumes. Stop this kind of bullshit!

Do normal Europeans forget where to put conjunctions and nouns?

Ah, Finland. I still need to visit that country. I heard it's quite charming in the spring. Simo Hayha is one of my favorite soldiers of all time. Such skill. Such brilliance. I wish I could get trained by him. Ah, a true warrior. I wonder if he has a school around there. Maybe he has.... hmmm, I should research that.

I'm assuming English is their second or third language.

I'm pretty sure that's part of the reason for the ongoing argument - both parties are clearly ESL and sometimes hard to understand for a native speaker, let alone someone with a different education in English.

I am total in agreement at you.

LOL

Yeah, no. I've been speaking English since I was 4. Second language? I speak it on a daily basis more than my own native tongue. It would be rather ironic to call it as such.

And yet, you're definitely not using it the same way a native speaker would, and often your phrasing is confusing or old-fashioned (call it as such, for example). Perhaps the dialect where you are has adopted structures and phrases from the other languages nearby? Regardless, I can definitely see it contributing some confusion to the ongoing disagreement.

Native speaker to where? The U.S.? You seem to be under the belief that phrasing is consistent across all English dialects. Influences are a possibility. The language, however, is fluid. If one can't paraphrase a sentence to a different form or understand paraphrased forms, perhaps one is not so proficient in the language as that one might think.