Beatings, dog bites, and barbed wire: life and death on the Poland-Belarus border

[Social Media]

Poland’s defence, interior and foreign ministers lined up in front of a tall, metal wall topped with barbed wire. Speaking to assembled television cameras, the three men warned of a terrible plot against Poland, orchestrated in the Kremlin.

The weapons in this “special operation” were not tanks or bombs, suggested the foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, but people from the Middle East and Africa. It was only the decision of the patriotic Polish government to construct the wall behind him that had foiled this Russian plan to sow discord and chaos in Poland, he said.

 

“Otherwise, we would have become Lampedusa, but a Lampedusa filled with migrants who had been given military training. Ninety per cent of them, then and now, have been recruited by the Russian special services,” Rau claimed, falsely.

Job done, the three ministers headed back to Warsaw. Their speeches were fed into the daily churn of migration scare-stories on pro-government television. The temperature rises each week, as Poland enters the final phase of a closely contested election campaign.

 

That same evening in late August, on the other side of the border wall, the health of 20-year-old Sadia Mohamed Mohamud was deteriorating. By then, Sadia had been stuck in the thin strip of land between the two border fences, Polish and Belarusian, for almost a month, together with a few fellow Somalis also trying to get to the EU. Sadia told the others she had left her conflict-torn home country in the hope of earning money in Europe to provide a decent life for her two young children, who remained in Mogadishu.

 

FULL STORY

[JonnyF]

Good to see Poland protecting it's borders (and thus, it's citizens).

 

Let's hope this becomes a trend.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Social Media said:

Sadia told the others she had left her conflict-torn home country in the hope of earning money in Europe to provide a decent life for her two young children, who remained in Mogadishu.

So, how under any criteria should this self confessed economic migrant be eligible to be allowed to stay in the EU?

 

I wonder how she had the idea that all she had to do was cross the border to be welcomed with open arms? Why are Euro governments not informing people in countries that they come from that economic migrants are not permitted to stay?

 

Also, how does a poor woman from Somalia afford to travel all the way to the Polish border? Who has paid for her transport, her food, her shelter along the way?

 

IMO there is much on this subject that the media is unwilling to inform us of.

 

I've noticed that all the stories are of people arriving at foreign borders, but never about those that are repatriated or rejected to exist in some other country. Do they have no story to tell?

[Tug]

20 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Good to see Poland protecting it's borders (and thus, it's citizens).

 

Let's hope this becomes a trend.

 

 

 

You do know that president Reagan was big on immigration reform and pathways to citizenship it’s one of his policies I admired 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

You do know that president Reagan was big on immigration reform and pathways to citizenship it’s one of his policies I admired 

Of course.

 

There is nothing wrong with controlled, legal immigration.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Of course.

 

There is nothing wrong with controlled, legal immigration.

There’s definitely something wrong with closing down legal routes for immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, then demonizing them for taking the ‘illegal’ routes.

[placeholder]

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Of course.

 

There is nothing wrong with controlled, legal immigration.

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty -- a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

 

So, I guess you'd have no problem with another amnesty?

[JonnyF]

30 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty -- a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

 

So, I guess you'd have no problem with another amnesty?

You can have an amnesty in the US for all I care. Knock yourselves out, your immigration policy is working great so far, a wonderful harmonious, peaceful society enjoyed by all ????. For the UK, I don't support Amnesty. Why would I? As for your silly diversionary tactics on 40, you think that agreeing with one of Reagan's quotes means I agree with every policy he ever implemented? That's quite a stretch in logic. In fact, it's a quite ridiculous notion even by your standards. Amnesty's just encourage future law breaking under the assumption that another amnesty will be provided further down the line.

 

Besides, if you control your borders in the first place (as is the topic of the thread), there is no need for Amnesty (your weak attempt at diversion) at a later date.

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

You can have an amnesty in the US for all I care. Knock yourselves out, your immigration policy is working great so far, a wonderful harmonious, peaceful society enjoyed by all ????. For the UK, I don't support Amnesty. Why would I? As for your silly diversionary tactics on 40, you think that agreeing with one of Reagan's quotes means I agree with every policy he ever implemented? That's quite a stretch in logic. In fact, it's a quite ridiculous notion even by your standards. Amnesty's just encourage future law breaking under the assumption that another amnesty will be provided further down the line.

 

Besides, if you control your borders in the first place (as is the topic of the thread), there is no need for Amnesty (your weak attempt at diversion) at a later date.

 

 

It's you who decided to invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, not me. Apparently, you believed he was some kind of authority on the issue. Otherwise, why invoke his words?

[JonnyF]

35 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's you who decided to invoke the words of Ronald Reagan, not me. Apparently, you believed he was some kind of authority on the issue. Otherwise, why invoke his words?

The quote I used was relevant to the thread. Who said it, less so...

 

Amnesty - a diversion.  

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The quote I used was relevant to the thread. Who said it, less so...

 

Amnesty - a diversion.  

The sentiment is unremarkable and commonplace. The only thing I can see that makes it stand out is that Ronald Reagan said it.

[JonnyF]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The sentiment is unremarkable and commonplace. The only thing I can see that makes it stand out is that Ronald Reagan said it.

Yeah, I guess the fact Reagan said it adds a lot more credibility than if a habitual liar like Biden said it. Fair point...

[placeholder]

12 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yeah, I guess the fact Reagan said it adds a lot more credibility than if a habitual liar like Biden said it. Fair point...

So, now you're claiming that the guy who offered a massive amnesty to undocumented aliens has valid credibility on this issue. After you claimed that it was more about the sentiment rather than the person who said it?

 

[JonnyF]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, now you're claiming that the guy who offered a massive amnesty to undocumented aliens has valid credibility on this issue. After you claimed that it was more about the sentiment rather than the person who said it?

 

No, I said it has more credibility than if Biden said it.

 

There's a huge chasm between having more credibility than Biden, and having valid credibility. 

[placeholder]

On 10/6/2023 at 8:30 AM, JonnyF said:

No, I said it has more credibility than if Biden said it.

 

There's a huge chasm between having more credibility than Biden, and having valid credibility. 

And as is usual for your comments, no way of proving what you wrote.  Maybe you consider Ronald Reagan,  the guy who claimed that tax cuts pay for themselves and launched America's massive adventure into major debt, but a knowledgeable person would think otherwise. 

[Tug]

Perhaps we should send Joe Biden’s dog there sounds like a good posting for him!

[retarius]

What, a story from the Guardian negative towards supporters of Ukraine. Our maybe Polish are now up as targets after their recent spat with Ukraine. 

 

I started reading the Guardian in 6th form and it became 'my newspaper' read every day for more than half a century.

 

I still now read what tiny bits of it I can stomach, like John Grace or Nils Partly. But the vast majority of it is unreadable for me, as it deals with women as victims, blacks as victims, trans as victims, gays as victims, Indians as victims, migrants as victims harassed by Indian aggressors like Rishi and Suella. 

 

The news about the Ukraine is so totally false and unbelievable I simply can't believe it (sic). All Ukraine statements are taken as gospel truth and anything fro Russia has a disclaimer more or less saying Russians are liars. In short, apart from football, a (very) few columnists and some culture (book reviews) it has sadly become worse than the tabloid rags.

Edited October 8, 2023 by retarius

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, retarius said:

What, a story from the Guardian negative towards supporters of Ukraine. Our maybe Polish are now up as targets after their recent spat with Ukraine. 

 

I started reading the Guardian in 6th form and it became 'my newspaper' read every day for more than half a century.

 

I still now read what tiny bits of it I can stomach, like John Grace or Nils Partly. But the vast majority of it is unreadable for me, as it deals with women as victims, blacks as victims, trans as victims, gays as victims, Indians as victims, migrants as victims harassed by Indian aggressors like Rishi and Suella. 

 

The news about the Ukraine is so totally false and unbelievable I simply can't believe it (sic). All Ukraine statements are taken as gospel truth and anything fro Russia has a disclaimer more or less saying Russians are liars. In short, apart from football, a (very) few columnists and some culture (book reviews) it has sadly become worse than the tabloid rags.

That applies to me with my opinion on any western media that I have access to. To say they are biased would be an understatement.

The only one I look at is Al Jazeera, as they are not western and also not depending on advertisers.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That applies to me with my opinion on any western media that I have access to. To say they are biased would be an understatement.

The only one I look at is Al Jazeera, as they are not western and also not depending on advertisers.

Who does Al-Jazeera depend on?

[retarius]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Who does Al-Jazeera depend on?

Personally I find Al Jazeera one of the better, more believable, less biased websites. It iOS far superior to any offering from the Main Stream Media in US, UK or European (English versions). Obviously it has predictable Middle East biases as one would expect. 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, retarius said:

Personally I find Al Jazeera one of the better, more believable, less biased websites. It iOS far superior to any offering from the Main Stream Media in US, UK or European (English versions). Obviously it has predictable Middle East biases as one would expect. 

Whatever the merits of Al-Jazeera may be, thaibeacher's belief that Al-Jazeera is superior because it does not depend on advertisers, is clearly ludicrous.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, retarius said:

Personally I find Al Jazeera one of the better, more believable, less biased websites. It iOS far superior to any offering from the Main Stream Media in US, UK or European (English versions). Obviously it has predictable Middle East biases as one would expect. 

I find it reasonably non biased, and most of the content on the English language channel is set in other countries around the world than the middle east.

There has been more Palestinian content recently than any time I remember previously. They spend more time in Africa than I am interested in though.

The only thing they are blatantly biased about is Trump, and they always were biased against him that I saw on there.

 

They had the very best coverage of the Egyptian crisis when the president was overthrown.

[retarius]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the merits of Al-Jazeera may be, thaibeacher's belief that Al-Jazeera is superior because it does not depend on advertisers, is clearly ludicrous.

What you say is a non sequitur. Many MSM outlets like the BBC are state sponsored media and are biased.....the BBC was started as a propaganda channel. They carry no ads in the UK, but their output on foreign affairs tis pure propaganda.

Other notoriously biased channels like CNN carry advertising and are nominally independent but carry the news and bias that the UJS government demands, otherwise they lose access to press briefings etc. 

One's opinions come from what they read and watch....anyone who watches the BBC or CNN has a totally slanted and false view of the Ukraine war. More discerning people who take the time to seek out other points of view have a broader and more realistic view of world events. 

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, retarius said:

What you say is a non sequitur. Many MSM outlets like the BBC are state sponsored media and are biased.....the BBC was started as a propaganda channel. They carry no ads in the UK, but their output on foreign affairs tis pure propaganda.

Other notoriously biased channels like CNN carry advertising and are nominally independent but carry the news and bias that the UJS government demands, otherwise they lose access to press briefings etc. 

One's opinions come from what they read and watch....anyone who watches the BBC or CNN has a totally slanted and false view of the Ukraine war. More discerning people who take the time to seek out other points of view have a broader and more realistic view of world events. 

The only person here who is claiming lack of bias in certain media sources is you.

[retarius]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The only person here who is claiming lack of bias in certain media sources is you.

Please quote where I have have said any media is without bias. That is not what I believe or advocate. All media is biased to some extent, which is why I like to read a lot of different media that have different biases so I have some context around the likely truth. Some sources are so unreliable that I can no longer read them, except in unusual cases. For example I cannot think of a reliable western mainstream media source for events in Ukraine. I scan them and occasionally pick up something that has some nugatory value. I prefer alternative media like ZH, RT, and the like for world events. They carry stories that MSM don't carry and the majority of propaganda is by omission......MSM simply don't carry certain stories.....want and example Hunter Biden's lap top story was surpassed for years by the FBI and influenced the outcome of the 2020 election (imho)

 

Anyway, you and I have nothing to talk about so I want to end any further discussion, you are convinced that what you read in the MSM is true and reality, and I KNOW it is not. Let's agree to disagree. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the merits of Al-Jazeera may be, thaibeacher's belief that Al-Jazeera is superior because it does not depend on advertisers, is clearly ludicrous.

Why you brought me into that when it wasn't a quote from me is puzzling. Perhaps I loom large in your thoughts?

 

Anyway, that's only part of the reason. Had you actually read my post I said because it's NOT a western news channel, as IMO all main stream western news channels are biased, ( IMO being infested with woke liberals, and report opinions , not news ).

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why you brought me into that when it wasn't a quote from me is puzzling. Perhaps I loom large in your thoughts?

 

Anyway, that's only part of the reason. Had you actually read my post I said because it's NOT a western news channel, as IMO all main stream western news channels are biased, ( IMO being infested with woke liberals, and report opinions , not news ).

I invoked your name because Retarius answered the question that I posed to you. And you really should read take the time to read the stuff you write. Here is what you wrote:

"That applies to me with my opinion on any western media that I have access to. To say they are biased would be an understatement.

The only one I look at is Al Jazeera, as they are not western and also not depending on advertisers."