Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on September 05, 2015, 10:09:18 AM
-
.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34150371
How do you feel about opening up our borders and allowing all the refugees in?
Are people here prepared to share their houses with refugees?
The pictures of the small boy who drowned was very sad and people reacted emotionally to the situation and we now have some celebs claiming our refusal to let them all in, is racist and based on the colour of there skin ( which I think is rubbish)
But can Britain cope? And what about the 13000 homeless people on bristols housing waiting list, that already exist among the people who already live here?
Is it racist to consider the effect on your fellow countrymen?
Why does it cost £50,000 for each unaccompanied child refugee? Most of us don't even earn that much, so our children have to make do with less.
What should we be doing in your opinion?
I'm torn between thinking we can't take large numbers and it isn't fair on people who already live here, and the humanitarian situation.
I think we have t grasp the nettle, all of those poor devils all they want to do is live a normal, whatever that may be, life.
It hurts me to see the predicament they're in, we all have our struggles here in the UK, but when compared to the dark place these Syrians are in at the moment.
ippy
-
I have to agree with you Julie. In these times of austerity with 1.8 million people unemployed, food banks, severe shortage of housing and school places and pressure on NHS, is it really prudent to allow tens of thousands (possibly) more people into this country? Also I m having trouble in working out what the difference is between an asylum seeker and an economic migrant. All those tens of thousands of people who have travelled from Turkey to Greece and then to Hungary, Austria and on their way to Germany are economic migrants surely? Although I have great sympathy for the father of that young Syrian boy who drowned, I do blame his father partially for leaving a safe heaven Turkey where he had lived for 3 years and putting his family at risk by trying to reach Greece on his way to Germany with his eventual destination of Canada.
In my view what we are witnessing is a mass movement of people not just from Syria but also Afghanistan and Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan who are trying to get to Europe for purely economic reasons. Don't let anyone try and put a total figure of 800,000 and that's it because that's just bellecks. This is likely to carry on for years.
-
According to this the UK has only taken 215 Syrian people between June 2014 and June 2015.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/refugees-welcome-uk-germany-compare-migration
I thought we had taken far more than that, I suppose that's legal immigrants as opposed to illegal ones that slip in.
I believe 5000 Syrians have already been granted asylum in the UK.
-
Dear Rose,
Bob Geldof has it right, a failure of new politics, we are reaping what new Labour and the Tories have sown.
Cameron is a reactive instead of a proactive Prime Minister.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
Bob Geldof has it right, a failure of new politics, we are reaping what new Labour and the Tories have sown.
Cameron is a reactive instead of a proactive Prime Minister.
Gonnagle.
Sorry, But I can't see Blair or Brown running into the same difficulties as Cameron over refugees and/or immigration.
-
Dear Rose and Vlad,
First of all, the other Thread is suppose to be about how we can help.
New Labour and Tory failure regarding oversea budgets used properly, failure to address housing shortage.
Actually maybe I have the whole Tory plan wrong, what they really want is war, send in the troops, that will take our minds off austerity, food bank and unemployment. >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Hi everyone,
There are no easy solutions or 'correct' views on this. Choosing between...'service above self'...and... 'charity begins at home' ...is difficult.
Taking in refugees temporarily from war torn areas or drought or flood hit areas is one thing. But taking in migrants who are running away from poverty and are looking for a better life is another thing. The second situation is more permanent and is likely to affect the citizens of the host country dramatically in the long run.
Poverty is everywhere and will only grow in coming decades. Should everyone become equally poor? Is that the only morally correct solution? I am not sure.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
There are no easy solutions or 'correct' views on this. Choosing between...'service above self'...and... 'charity begins at home' ...is difficult.
Taking in refugees temporarily from war torn areas or drought or flood hit areas is one thing. But taking in migrants who are running away from poverty and are looking for a better life is another thing. The second situation is more permanent and is likely to affect the citizens of the host country dramatically in the long run.
Poverty is everywhere and will only grow in coming decades. Should everyone become equally poor? Is that the only morally correct solution? I am not sure.
Cheers.
Sriram
I suppose there's nothing like stating the obvious.
We're very comfortable here in the UK I'm happy in these circumstances to give up some of my comfort, quite a bit of my comfort, to accommodate these exceptionally needy people in trouble mostly through no fault of their own.
They need open hands now, let's sort out the practicalities in due course.
ippy
-
What we need on this issue is leadership by example.
Bob Geldorf has offered to take some refugees into both of his homes, I presume he will also be buying their food, clothing, medical and education fees. Good for him presumably he can afford it. And that his surrounding infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc) can cope without putting other local people at a disadvantage.
But what about the queen surely she could take on thousands in Buck Palace, Balmoral, Etc.
Chequers too has lots of spare rooms there and left overs from banquets, etc.
But personally living on our pensions in our tiny little house where we sometimes have to accommodate grandchildren short term my wife and I can't help I'm afraid.
AND of course the more we take the more will come!
-
One part of me doesn't want all these people who once they find their feet might become a threat to our way of life
Why?
-
One part of me doesn't want all these people who once they find their feet might become a threat to our way of life
Why?
Because these people will come in with their new culture, language and food and they will sully our pure Celtic-Saxon-Danish-Norman-Indian-West-Indian-African-Pakistani-Vietnamiese-Chinese-Polish culture just like all the other immigrants did.
Actually, I'm quite excited about the idea.
-
The Pakistanis of MY area in north west Lancs are cacking themselves over the POLISH in our area, as it is ?!!?!? LOL
-
Rose,
My sympathies are with the people who are trying to escape the brutalities that are happening in the Middle East. I cannot imagine living under such chaos. However, no one can expect the other countries of the world to absorb the great numbers of people fleeing. It is time that the people of the Middle East say, "Enough".
It is time they learned to face the danger, pick up arms and put themselves on the front lines to fight their oppressors.
Almost every country has had to fight for its freedom at some point in time -- many times, in some countries. No one can expect others to lay down their lives for them or take care of them forever. We have seen the United States spend money and lives attempting to train fighters, only to have those trainees turn and run in battle or just give up. We cannot do this forever, nor can any other nation. We as a nation have given so much to others, including our life's blood, and have many times been slapped in the face in return. It is time for these refugees to stand up and help themselves by bearing arms and fighting back.
-
It is time for these refugees to stand up and help themselves by bearing arms and fighting back.
Unfortunately, the problems in Syria are partly due to the refugees standing up and fighting back.
-
Hand-waving.
Why might the people we welcome into the country as refugees end up as a threat to our way of life? Be specific.
-
One part of me doesn't want all these people who once they find their feet might become a threat to our way of life
Why?
It's to do with psychology!
And their history, situation and experiences.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/04/10/children-who-view-domestic-abuse-more-likely-to-bully-fight-lie-cheat/
Very often the children have experienced far more awful traumatic things which are going to need a lot of resources to sort out, than just " domestic violence".
If you don't deal with it, and it won't be easy, it may well come out in adult life in ways that are antisocial.
It isn't just a matter of giving them somewhere to stay, we also have to deal with children that have been tortured, watched their friends and family murdered callously in front of their eyes.
If we don't give them full support, we will pay for it later, when they have difficulties as adults.
These people have never lived in a democracy.
To integrate them into our society, we need to give them more than just somewhere safe to stay.
To deny this is to deny the trauma they have suffered.
Read this, it is heartbreaking.
https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/untold_atrocities.pdf
It isn't that I don't want to help or give them a safe place.
But the scale of the help they really need and I feel if we take them in, we are duty bound to give.
These people have never lived in a democracy.
I feel if we don't give huge resources into helping them, and especially the children, we are storing up problems for ourselves.
The damage done to the children is enormous and I don't feel the people who want tens of thousands in perminantly have really though about the amount of help they actually need.
I'd rather have less, and do a better job.
It concerns me that these people don't have our values, because they have had to fight for everything and in a way they are damaged and conditioned by their experiences, they can't help that.
It concerns me that too many people think it is just a matter of supplying food and shelter and safety and leaving them to get on with it.
It isn't, their lives have been shattered, children are not going to grow up "normal" unless they are fully supported.
It isn't an isolated incidence the children have suffered, but is probably in some cases all they have ever known, some being Kurds and having suffered prejudice.
Some of the children have been tortured and witnessed awful things.
They cannot just be imported enmass and just suddenly be expected to carry on as if they were British children who haven't experienced that.
If we don't help them cope, our society will suffer for it, when they become adults.
We don't expect soldiers to cope do we?
Some of these children have seen worse.One part of me doesn't want all these people who once they find their feet might become a threat to our way of life
Why?
Because these people will come in with their new culture, language and food and they will sully our pure Celtic-Saxon-Danish-Norman-Indian-West-Indian-African-Pakistani-Vietnamiese-Chinese-Polish culture just like all the other immigrants did.
Actually, I'm quite excited about the idea.
No that isn't the problem.
I like different cultures.
Where I live has a high number of ethnic groups and sometimes I am the only white face in my local butchers, I am used to that.
So these poor devils have to sit around while you or more like people like you make up your minds, it's good to see someone having these deep and considered thoughts before putting out their hand to save the drowning person.
ippy
-
S times reports that Cameron has decided to accept 15000 Syrians. Is that too many, too few or about right? A poll in one of Sunday papers shows that 3 in 10 people do not want ANY Syrians to be allowed in. And of course the election wasn't too long ago where 4 million people voted for UKIP and Cameron and the Tories promised to cut immigration to tens of thousands. Should those people who voted for the Tories sue them for breach of contract?
-
Only if they are too stupid to not understand that refugees and immigrants are not the same thing under international law.
-
International law v election pledge? Net migration of a third of a million people last year added to scores of illegal migrants who make their way into the UK daily and unrecorded student and visitor overstayers and add another 15000 plus more asylum seekers. How long can the numbers be sustainable? And of course the vast majority of these choose to live in England esp the south east. Cameron is a buffoon. Is there a single policy he hasn't done a u turn on?
-
Although I do think that picking and choosing x number of Syrians from United Nations camps and bringing them over and offering sanctuary and international protection is a far better option then opening the doors to those who have entered Europe clandestinely and who have refused to be documented or fingerprinted by Hungarian and Austrian authorities.
-
Well....look at what Sarah Palin is saying. and...she is probably right.
http://us.cnn.com/2015/09/06/politics/sarah-palin-diversity-spanish/index.html
**************************************************************************
"It's a benefit of Bush to be able to be so fluent, because we have a large and wonderful Hispanic population building America, and that's a great connection he has with them," Palin told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview that aired Sunday on "State of the Union."
"On the other hand, I think we can send a message and say, 'You want to be in America, A, you'd better be here legally or you're out of here. B, when you're here, let's speak American. ... Let's speak English, and that's a kind of a unifying aspect of the nation is the language that is understood by all."
**************************************************************************
A problem that might become more pressing in European countries in the years to come given the migrant situation.
-
Palin has an ability to always be wrong about anything. There is no requirement to speak English in America and there are a large numbers who do not speak English (including what seems to be the majority of NY cab drivers!).
Why would there be a similar "problem" in Europe where most nations already have multi-cultural populations using multiple languages?
-
I have yet to read of news reports about Saudis, Oman, UAE accepting a SINGLE Syrian migrant. It's not about those countries being too poor. Is it because the Syrians are the wrong type of Muslims or is it as a reporter opined that Saudis want to preserve their identity. If that is the case, why has there been opprobrium heaped on Hungarians for talking about preserving European Christian identity?
-
The Saudis are wrong, so are the Hungarians imo. Condemning one doesn't mean that one doesn't condemn the other. As I posted on thread about 'The Great Migration', govts support of regimes like Saudi which acts like a sanctioned ISIS, is part of the reason for the problem as it supports the very thing it seeks to condemn.
-
Hand-waving.
Why might the people we welcome into the country as refugees end up as a threat to our way of life? Be specific.
Perhaps rose might have been talking about this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/27/us-sweden-riots-idUSBRE94Q0E620130527
-
Somebody really pleased to be in Europe with a special message for the people of his new home....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A74bMcJdH0s
-
Hand-waving.
Why might the people we welcome into the country as refugees end up as a threat to our way of life? Be specific.
Perhaps rose might have been talking about this?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/27/us-sweden-riots-idUSBRE94Q0E620130527
Yes that's the sort of thing plus the rise of the far right as a result.
The far right are a big enough threat as it is and in a way threaten us more than the immigrants.
Basically I'd rather avoid the conditions that give them power, so would the Irainian taxi driver in the article, I'm sure.
I expect he is worried about it too.
I've got a feeling he would understand exactly what I meant.
Absolutely and that's what I was trying to allude to when I mentioned 4 million people voting for UKIP. There has been a rise in far right political parties in Sweden and Denmark. If people feel their voices are being ignored they will steer towards extremist parties. A German colleague was telling me that there is a lot of disquiet in Germany about merkels announcement of accepting 800000 migrants but anyone expressing views against this is slapped down by shouts of having nazi sympathies. There are questions that need to be addressed? Syria has a population of 17 million and with the civil war reaching a stalemate how many more Syrians will be fleeing the country? How many can Europe accept realistically? Is Yvette coopers proposal to accept 50,000 Syrians practical and at what stage will the UK public opinion change against accepting large numbers of migrants? Should the UK together with the allies invade Syria with troops on the ground and depose Assad and destroy IS? The parliament has already voted against the military involvement in Syria. There is more to this then salvaging our conscience and feeling good about doing the right thing.
-
Every Arab state waging their proxy war in Syria, should be funding,taking in and resettling the bulk of the refugees. Most don't like the idea of resettlement because it encourages more Syrians to flee that country.
-
Some Arab states are happy to throw petrodollars at the problem but will not allow a single Syrian to settle in their countries. It's about keeping out the wrong type of Muslims and preserving their ethnic identity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34173139
-
The other interesting snippet of Information I read was that the Hungarian authorities had listed 30 nationalities making their way to the promised land of merkel. The Frau really doesn't know how her foolhardy decision will not only be a massive pull factor but how destabilising it will be for other schengen member states.
-
They are saying that Germany can accommodate many more asylum seekers, at least 500000 per year for many more years.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185353
Not bad I say!
-
If the situation was different and we were the one fleeing, I bet most of these refugees would happily give us a room in their homes.
-
They are saying that Germany can accommodate many more asylum seekers, at least 500000 per year for many more years.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185353
Not bad I say!
Ha! Within a couple of years they'd have their own civil war to worry about!
-
Yes....many of our solutions are the source of our future problems.
The idea some people have that the world is someday going to be a idyllic place with equality for all individuals with everyone leading a carefree, liberated and hedonistic life....is obviously just a dream.
-
Frau Merkel has embarked on a social experiment which can only end in tears. She is trying to import large unprecedented number of people with completely different culture and outlook in life and in many ways different to the host community. She needs to regenerate population as German women are not producing enough children but this is just a stupid and a foolhardy step which will not only create disorder in neighbouring member states due to schengen but will break German society apart in the future.
-
A couple of interesting news stories I came across.
http://www.rt.com/news/270214-bavaria-muslim-school-clothes/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-offers-germany-200-mosques--one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html
-
Accidentally stumbled across them, dadvokat?
-
Accidentally stumbled across them, dadvokat?
Why - do you think we should not discuss these because you might consider them to be controversial?
-
Accidentally stumbled across them, dadvokat?
Why - do you think we should not discuss these because you might consider them to be controversial?
That's not a response to my question.
In answer to the "Why?" - because while one of the links in your previous post was from the Independent, the other was from some media outlet I'd never heard of called RT. Because I've never heard of it I looked it up. It turns out to be:
RT is a Russian pro-putinist state-funded propaganda network which runs cable and satellite television channels, as well as Internet content directed to audiences outside the Russian Federation.
and elsewhere:
RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy by former Russian officials and by news reporters, including former RT reporters. It has also been accused of spreading disinformation. The United Kingdom media regulator Ofcom has threatened RT with sanctions because of repeated violations of its rules on impartiality.
Pretty obscure, I think you'll agree. It seems to me that given the views you're on record as having stated repeatedly, you're simply trawling the Web for any stories which to your mind might show refugees in a negative light no matter how slightly, which was why I asked if you'd stumbled across those stories accidentally (you know - that question you wouldn't answer).
I think the answer is obvious, which is why you didn't provide it.
-
RT is unreliable, but the story was covered by the Die Weld a respectable German newspaper. It is fact.
It's perfectly reasonable to believe that Islamists may see the influx of refugees into Europe as a desirable side effect of their other activities, helping to spread the message of Islam.
-
Is it?
-
If you had tried to investigate this story, you would have found it on various media outlets. But its quite obvious where you are coming from. I have made my views quite clear. I live in the south east and we are FULL. We do not need more economic migrants from anywhere in the world.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/german-school-prohibits-revealing-clothing/ar-AAcFny5
-
If you had tried to investigate this story, you would have found it on various media outlets. But its quite obvious where you are coming from.
If it's so obvious you won't have a moment's trouble in saying exactly where I'm "coming from," then, will you?
Not that you will, answering questions clearly not being your thing.
I have made my views quite clear.
Haven't you just.
I live in the south east and we are FULL. We do not need more economic migrants from anywhere in the world.
I thought we were discussing the refugees from the Syrian crisis.
At least, I was.
-
Is it?
Why is it that Saudi and the other Gulf states, with plenty of land and money, are not allowing in many of those fleeing Syria, Afghanistan etc? imo they know the refugees carry sectarian and ethnic conflicts that they don't want to be embroiled in - though they seem happy enough to fund it elsewhere.
-
Why is it that Saudi and the other Gulf states, with plenty of land and money, are not allowing in many of those fleeing Syria, Afghanistan etc?
I've no idea. If I had to guess I'd say that we already know that these countries are ones with horrific human rights abuses (abundant evidence provided on request) who don't give two shiny shites about their own citizens let alone those from elsewhere, and who don't give a damn about those suffering in the worst refugee crisis since the very end of WWII.
imo they know the refugees carry sectarian and ethnic conflicts that they don't want to be embroiled in - though they seem happy enough to fund it elsewhere.
That's an opinion based on what?
-
The escalation of conflicts in Pakistan, following refugees from Afghanistan mostly.
-
The widely held opinion that Saudi Arabia, the biggest of the Gulf nations, hasn't taken in a single refugee may well be incorrect. Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf region at the United Nations' refugee agency, UNHCR, told Bloomberg there were 500,000 Syrians in that country. Saudi Arabia, like all of the Gulf states, is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention, so these displaced people are not officially designated as refugees.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-04/why-don-t-gulf-states-accept-more-refugees-
An article giving possible reasons for Gulf states not taking in more refugees due to the potential for conflict based on existing demographics as the Gulf states already have a lot of foreign workers in proportion to locals, whereas there is apparently less of a risk in European countries where the refugees will be a very small percentage of the host population.
As I stated on another thread in relation to this topic, I live in London, and think the refugees are entitled to do what they need to do to secure the future of their children and if that means coming to London and reducing my standard of living, so be it. Refugee camps are no place for people to live long-term - they are unsafe and there are few prospects to improve your situation. Education becomes disrupted and women and girls especially are sexually exploited because they have nowhere to run and nowhere else to go. That was happening on a regular basis in refugee/ IDP camps in Sri Lanka.
-
If you had tried to investigate this story, you would have found it on various media outlets. But its quite obvious where you are coming from.
If it's so obvious you won't have a moment's trouble in saying exactly where I'm "coming from," then, will you?
Not that you will, answering questions clearly not being your thing.
I have made my views quite clear.
Haven't you just.
I live in the south east and we are FULL. We do not need more economic migrants from anywhere in the world.
I thought we were discussing the refugees from the Syrian crisis.
At least, I was.
So you were casting aspertions due to a link I posted. I re-posted a link from another source but you have suddenly changed the topic and no apology either. I suppose thats answers your question.
-
So you were casting aspertions due to a link I posted.
Not only on the basis of that but on the basis of pretty well everything I've seen you post, which has been one long stream of xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee propaganda.
I re-posted a link from another source but you have suddenly changed the topic and no apology either. I suppose thats answers your question.
What is it I'm supposed to be apologising for, precisely?
-
You missed out racist.
-
So you were casting aspertions due to a link I posted.
Not only on the basis of that but on the basis of pretty well everything I've seen you post, which has been one long stream of xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee propaganda.
I re-posted a link from another source but you have suddenly changed the topic and no apology either. I suppose thats answers your question.
What is it I'm supposed to be apologising for, precisely?
so not wanting this country to be flooded with economic migrants is racist? you will find that the majority of people do not want this country to open its border to tens of thousands of migrants. Of course you belong to the labour lovies club who do not live in the real world and want open borders?. So, no apology forthcomg then? Oh but you havent even expressed an opinion - too busy sniping from the sidelines..
-
Yes the lefties. They know what's good you you and how dare you have a different point of view, how dare you disagree with them. The people who opened the floodgates of mass immigration in the 90's and followed GWB which, in part, created the mess we have now.
Roll on Corbyn, it will shatter the party and make them unelectable forever.
-
so not wanting this country to be flooded with economic migrants is racist? you will find that the majority of people do not want this country to open its border to tens of thousands of migrants. Of course you belong to the labour lovies club who do not live in the real world and want open borders?
That's a superb example of exactly the kind of splenetic, ugly, poisonous rhetoric I was referring to. Well done.
So, no apology forthcomg then?
I've already asked what it is that I'm supposed to be apologising for, but we've already established that you don't answer straight questions.
-
And shouting people down with the usual descriptors, brow beating people to believe they are simply haters and racists allows things like Rotherham to thrive, nay, be encouraged.
-
Nobody's shouting anybody down. dadvokat has the absolute right of reply to anything I've said, only he seems to be unequal to the job, or uninterested in doing so, or busy ... take your pick.
-
Nobody's shouting anybody down. dadvokat has the absolute right of reply to anything I've said, only he seems to be unequal to the job, or uninterested in doing so, or busy ... take your pick.
Oh really - your responses suggest otherwise. Carry on with the usual bolshie intolerance 'my point of view is always right' and if you disagree you are a bigot, a xenophobe and a racist. "How dare you question the left wing mantra of open borders and let them all in."
I am not going to lead you back to the message where you should have offered an apology butthen I do not think you are big or gracious enough.
Oh and you still havent expressed a point of view about how many refugees (economic migrants) you think the UK should allow. Anywhere near the German total of 800,000? Should we be worried about security and IS sleepers inflitrating European borders?
-
And shouting people down with the usual descriptors, brow beating people to believe they are simply haters and racists allows things like Rotherham to thrive, nay, be encouraged.
The above post is brought to you by Moebius
Irony Strip inc.
-
Oh really
Yes, really.
your responses suggest otherwise.
Only to you.
Carry on with the usual bolshie intolerance 'my point of view is always right'
If I didn't think my opinions were right I shouldn't hold them.
and if you disagree you are a bigot, a xenophobe and a racist.
That's how your posts come across, yes.
"How dare you question the left wing mantra of open borders and let them all in."
That's not a mantra I've heard chanted by anybody of any political persuasion. Looks like madey-uppy bullshit to me.
I am not going to lead you back to the message where you should have offered an apology
That's because it doesn't exist. I've now asked you twice what it is you think I'm supposed to apologise for and you've been unable to answer the question, so I conclude that it doesn't exist.
Oh and you still havent expressed a point of view about how many refugees (economic migrants) you think the UK should allow. Anywhere near the German total of 800,000?
No, that would be too many for a country two-thirds the size of Germany with the population density we already have.
Should we be worried about security and IS sleepers inflitrating European borders?
No, that's paranoid Muzzies-under-my-bed swivel-eyed twaddle.
-
Dadvokat, IIRC you are British Asian? How did your family arrive in the UK?
-
Oh really
Yes, really.
your responses suggest otherwise.
Only to you.
Carry on with the usual bolshie intolerance 'my point of view is always right'
If I didn't think my opinions were right I shouldn't hold them.
and if you disagree you are a bigot, a xenophobe and a racist.
That's how your posts come across, yes.
"How dare you question the left wing mantra of open borders and let them all in."
That's not a mantra I've heard chanted by anybody of any political persuasion. Looks like madey-uppy bullshit to me.
I am not going to lead you back to the message where you should have offered an apology
That's because it doesn't exist. I've now asked you twice what it is you think I'm supposed to apologise for and you've been unable to answer the question, so I conclude that it doesn't exist.
Oh and you still havent expressed a point of view about how many refugees (economic migrants) you think the UK should allow. Anywhere near the German total of 800,000?
No, that would be too many for a country two-thirds the size of Germany with the population density we already have.
Should we be worried about security and IS sleepers inflitrating European borders?
No, that's paranoid Muzzies-under-my-bed swivel-eyed twaddle.
At last after dithering one straight answer and by refusing to accept more then 20,000 Syrian migrants, I accuse you being a bigot and an islamophobe. How does that feel? You don't think IS haven't thought about using this route to infiltrate European borders but you wouldn't. You are in favour of tens of thousands of economic migrants roaming across the EU borders refusing to be documented and fingerprinted? Well done what a fecking law abiding citizen you are except people like you are endangering the safety of our countrymen but hey as long as you can prove you are a limp wristed luvie who doesn't care the impact migration will have on schools, social services, housing and health service for the indigenous peoples of this country you don't care, do you. Give that man a medal for being a bleeding heart liberal of the year to be presented by comrade Corbyn.
-
Dadvokat, IIRC you are British Asian? How did your family arrive in the UK?
Not quite sure what my background and personal circumstances has to do with anything? Suffice to say they didn't arrive in the back of the lorry as clandestines or using forged documents. Why do you need to ask?
-
At last after dithering one straight answer and by refusing to accept more then 20,000 Syrian migrants, I accuse you being a bigot and an islamophobe. How does that feel? You don't think IS haven't thought about using this route to infiltrate European borders but you wouldn't. You are in favour of tens of thousands of economic migrants roaming across the EU borders refusing to be documented and fingerprinted? Well done what a fecking law abiding citizen you are except people like you are endangering the safety of our countrymen but hey as long as you can prove you are a limp wristed luvie who doesn't care the impact migration will have on schools, social services, housing and health service for the indigenous peoples of this country you don't care, do you. Give that man a medal for being a bleeding heart liberal of the year to be presented by comrade Corbyn.
You sound utterly unhinged.
-
At last after dithering one straight answer and by refusing to accept more then 20,000 Syrian migrants, I accuse you being a bigot and an islamophobe. How does that feel? You don't think IS haven't thought about using this route to infiltrate European borders but you wouldn't. You are in favour of tens of thousands of economic migrants roaming across the EU borders refusing to be documented and fingerprinted? Well done what a fecking law abiding citizen you are except people like you are endangering the safety of our countrymen but hey as long as you can prove you are a limp wristed luvie who doesn't care the impact migration will have on schools, social services, housing and health service for the indigenous peoples of this country you don't care, do you. Give that man a medal for being a bleeding heart liberal of the year to be presented by comrade Corbyn.
You sound utterly unhinged.
It's the effect you have on people, dear!
😄
No it isn't - take a trawl through davokat's posts (as I'm afraid I have) and you'll see that he was gibbering in exactly the same Daily Mail terms long before I started posting here again.
-
At last after dithering one straight answer and by refusing to accept more then 20,000 Syrian migrants, I accuse you being a bigot and an islamophobe. How does that feel? You don't think IS haven't thought about using this route to infiltrate European borders but you wouldn't. You are in favour of tens of thousands of economic migrants roaming across the EU borders refusing to be documented and fingerprinted? Well done what a fecking law abiding citizen you are except people like you are endangering the safety of our countrymen but hey as long as you can prove you are a limp wristed luvie who doesn't care the impact migration will have on schools, social services, housing and health service for the indigenous peoples of this country you don't care, do you. Give that man a medal for being a bleeding heart liberal of the year to be presented by comrade Corbyn.
You sound utterly unhinged.
You mean you won't accept that you want this country to let in 500,000 migrants (your own assertion of Germany being two thirds larger then the UK) and now realise how moronic that sounds to even the most left wing 'let's have open borders' red brigade. Unhinged indeed...
-
At last after dithering one straight answer and by refusing to accept more then 20,000 Syrian migrants, I accuse you being a bigot and an islamophobe. How does that feel? You don't think IS haven't thought about using this route to infiltrate European borders but you wouldn't. You are in favour of tens of thousands of economic migrants roaming across the EU borders refusing to be documented and fingerprinted? Well done what a fecking law abiding citizen you are except people like you are endangering the safety of our countrymen but hey as long as you can prove you are a limp wristed luvie who doesn't care the impact migration will have on schools, social services, housing and health service for the indigenous peoples of this country you don't care, do you. Give that man a medal for being a bleeding heart liberal of the year to be presented by comrade Corbyn.
You sound utterly unhinged.
It's the effect you have on people, dear!
😄
No it isn't - take a trawl through davokat's posts (as I'm afraid I have) and you'll see that he was gibbering in exactly the same Daily Mail terms long before I started posting here again.
Ah so you have been going through my posting history. Lol I have to confess I haven't checked any of your previous posts as I know they will be utter gibberish. :)
-
Ah so you have been going through my posting history.
Alas, yes, but in the spirit of amassing further evidence of what I already knew.
Lol I have to confess I haven't checked any of your previous posts as I know they will be utter gibberish. :)
Coming from somebody who can't even string together a properly-spelled and correctly-punctuated sentence, that's praise indeed.
-
Ah so you have been going through my posting history.
Alas, yes, but in the spirit of amassing further evidence of what I already knew.
Lol I have to confess I haven't checked any of your previous posts as I know they will be utter gibberish. :)
Coming from somebody who can't even string together a properly-spelled and correctly-punctuated sentence, that's praise indeed.
And you have dodged and evaded all the questions put to you - you are just a legend in your own little mind. I will leave you to go on a witch hunt for daily mail reading swivel eyed Loons, racists and islamophobes. 8)
-
Dadvokat, IIRC you are British Asian? How did your family arrive in the UK?
Not quite sure what my background and personal circumstances has to do with anything? Suffice to say they didn't arrive in the back of the lorry as clandestines or using forged documents. Why do you need to ask?
Because one of my best friends is a British Asian whose family was given the chance to start a new life here after being expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. My own background includes Irish immigrants who came here much earlier to escape famine. This country has a history of giving people without much hope a chance and I wondered why you object to paying our good fortune forward.
-
Dadvokat, IIRC you are British Asian? How did your family arrive in the UK?
Not quite sure what my background and personal circumstances has to do with anything? Suffice to say they didn't arrive in the back of the lorry as clandestines or using forged documents. Why do you need to ask?
Because one of my best friends is a British Asian whose family was given the chance to start a new life here after being expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. My own background includes Irish immigrants who came here much earlier to escape famine. This country has a history of giving people without much hope a chance and I wondered why you object to paying our good fortune forward.
Only 28000 Ugandan Asians were allowed in and they all had British passports. Are you saying that anyone with immigrant roots should NEVER express an opinion about controlling immigration. How perverse.
-
And you have dodged and evaded all the questions put to you
I remember only one question being put to me (the specific number of refugees the UK should take, for which I have no specific answer). I know for certain that I've asked you the same question twice which you declined to answer, so why should I bother?
I will leave you to go on a witch hunt for daily mail reading swivel eyed Loons, racists and islamophobes. 8)
Well, so long as you remain a member of this forum, I can always count on finding one.
-
Dadvokat, IIRC you are British Asian? How did your family arrive in the UK?
Not quite sure what my background and personal circumstances has to do with anything? Suffice to say they didn't arrive in the back of the lorry as clandestines or using forged documents. Why do you need to ask?
Because one of my best friends is a British Asian whose family was given the chance to start a new life here after being expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin. My own background includes Irish immigrants who came here much earlier to escape famine. This country has a history of giving people without much hope a chance and I wondered why you object to paying our good fortune forward.
Only 28000 Ugandan Asians were allowed in and they all had British passports. Are you saying that anyone with immigrant roots should NEVER express an opinion about controlling immigration. How perverse.
No, but I'm wondering why you are so against offering a safe haven to the victims of a terrible war if migration gave your family a safe haven - same as mine got. That isn't the same as saying that you have no right to discuss immigration control - but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration, are they? That isn't what this discussion is about.
-
I don't believe they are refugees. They have travelled through several safe countries and have refused to be documented or fingerprinted. Does that sound like the actions of refugees? They have refused to claim asylum and have travelled from Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Austria. They are demanding to pick and choose their country of residence. Does that sound like the action of refugees?
And of course why just Syrians? And not Eritreans, afghans, Iraqis Somalis, Sudanese and Pakistanis? How many more people can we accept? You do realise that the great migration movement from sub Saharan Africa and Middle East is still going on and likely to carry on for a long time. We are full up with a severe housing shortage, pressure on schools, GP surgeries and NHS? I stated the same thing about East European migration which would have shot down that imbecile shakers baseless accusations.
-
No, but I'm wondering why you are so against offering a safe haven to the victims of a terrible war if migration gave your family a safe haven - same as mine got. That isn't the same as saying that you have no right to discuss immigration control - but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration, are they? That isn't what this discussion is about.
It's a peculiar phenomenon, Rhi, and one that I've seen more times than I can possibly remember - I refer to refugees being extended the hand of friendship, safety and security in what will become their adopted home, only later to say that there should be no more of the very thing that got them there in the first place because the country is "full up."
It's not usual amongst immigrants but it's not especially rare, either, given the amount of times I've seen it, which in itself is based on the fact that I live in what is possibly the most multicultural, ethnically diverse place in the United Kingdom (I mean Leicester). I suspect that it's probably explainable by some relatively simple but rather depressing facets of human psychology.
-
And of course why just Syrians? And not Eritreans, afghans, Iraqis Somalis, Sudanese and Pakistanis? How many more people can we accept? You do realise that the great migration movement from sub Saharan Africa and Middle East is still going on and likely to carry on for a long time. We are full up with a severe housing shortage, pressure on schools, GP surgeries and NHS? I stated the same thing about East European migration which would have shot down that imbecile shakers baseless accusations.
No it wouldn't. I don't remember such a thread - it may have been before I returned to this forum - but I would have thought then, as I think now, that you're just as much of a minuscule-minded, callous, xenophobic thrombosed haemorrhoid about eastern Europeans as you are about Syrians.
-
No, but I'm wondering why you are so against offering a safe haven to the victims of a terrible war if migration gave your family a safe haven - same as mine got. That isn't the same as saying that you have no right to discuss immigration control - but nobody is advocating uncontrolled immigration, are they? That isn't what this discussion is about.
It's a peculiar phenomenon, Rhi, and one that I've seen more times than I can possibly remember - I refer to refugees being extended the hand of friendship, safety and security in what will become their adopted home, only later to say that there should be no more of the very thing that got them there in the first place because the country is "full up."
It's not usual amongst immigrants but it's not especially rare, either, given the amount of times I've seen it, which in itself is based on the fact that I live in what is possibly the most multicultural, ethnically diverse place in the United Kingdom (more so by far than London: I mean Leicester). I suspect that it's probably explainable by some relatively simple but rather depressing facets of human psychology.
So what are you now - a fecking psychologist? Lol.
So you are from Leicester? Explains your inferior complex.
-
So what are you now - a fecking psychologist? Lol.
No, just someone capable of reading and forming an opinion based upon that reading.
So you are from Leicester? Explains your inferior complex.
I presume this mangled mess is supposed to mean "inferiority complex"? Which one is that, then?
So what are you now - a fecking psychologist? Lol.
-
And of course why just Syrians? And not Eritreans, afghans, Iraqis Somalis, Sudanese and Pakistanis? How many more people can we accept? You do realise that the great migration movement from sub Saharan Africa and Middle East is still going on and likely to carry on for a long time. We are full up with a severe housing shortage, pressure on schools, GP surgeries and NHS? I stated the same thing about East European migration which would have shot down that imbecile shakers baseless accusations.
No it wouldn't. I don't remember such a thread - it may have been before I returned to this forum - but I would have thought then, as I think now, that you're just as much of a minuscule-minded, callous, xenophobic thrombosed haemorrhoid about eastern Europeans as you are about Syrians.
Proof if any were needed that you really are an imbecile. So I do hope you have registered to open your home for a Syrian family? Or are you just all mouth? jmind you not many would want to move to that decrepit hell hole. <whistle>.
-
Thought I might have an intelligent convo with rhi but I see he is still lurking around and sniping from the sidelines so I m off for the evening. Adios.
-
The Irony in this thread threatens to just become pish
-
Sniping from the sidelines - or rather a lazy well poison.
-
Adios.
That's a foreign word.
-
I don't believe they are refugees. They have travelled through several safe countries and have refused to be documented or fingerprinted. Does that sound like the actions of refugees? They have refused to claim asylum and have travelled from Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary and Austria. They are demanding to pick and choose their country of residence. Does that sound like the action of refugees?
And of course why just Syrians? And not Eritreans, afghans, Iraqis Somalis, Sudanese and Pakistanis? How many more people can we accept? You do realise that the great migration movement from sub Saharan Africa and Middle East is still going on and likely to carry on for a long time. We are full up with a severe housing shortage, pressure on schools, GP surgeries and NHS? I stated the same thing about East European migration which would have shot down that imbecile shakers baseless accusations.
I know there are posters on this forum who will try and stop me from expressing my views but I won't be put off by these little hitlers and stalins.
Here goes - are these people refugees or economic migrants?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11837295/Watch-live-migrants-on-the-move-across-Europe.html
-
Oh, the poor little me martyr card is played ::)
Nobody is trying to stop you from expressing your views; they're being challenged and criticised, which is clearly something you're not used to judging by your rather infantile, self-pitying reaction.
-
Oh, the poor little me martyr card is played ::)
Nobody is trying to stop you from expressing your views; they're being challenged and criticised, which is clearly something you're not used to judging by your rather infantile, self-pitying reaction.
Your bullying behaviour as evidenced on this thread is there for all to see. You probably still think you are back at school with infantile name-calling. I am sure you have realised that you have been shown up to be just an Internet keyboard warrior. How pathetic. Please do come back and post on this thread if you have anything sensible to add. I won't be holding my breath.
-
I won't be holding my breath.
Please say you'll try!
-
Dadvokat, the irony of you complaining about infantile name-calling....clearly you don't read your own posts. You do know how to read, don't you....?
I think many of the refugees would be an asset to the country - most of the Syrians I know are quite intelligent, certainly more intelligent than Dadvokat ( judging by his posts), hardworking and resourceful and their children do well at school - the UK economy will probably benefit from their input.
Also, given that the bombing campaign in Syria and this whole situation to topple Assad, an ally of Russia, is severely tainted by U.S. and Saudi's desire to control oil and gas supply to Europe and thereby cut Russia and Iran's revenue, and weaken the Russian and Iranian economies in order to reduce Russian and Iranian influence in the region as well as the domestic popularity of their leaders - I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice while the U.S., Russians, Iranians and Saudis finish the job of reducing their country of birth to rubble, since this war is not going to finish any time soon.
ETA - oops forgot to mention the Iranians. This article explains those supporting Assad against those seeking to overthrow him, and why this means vetoing of any UN resolutions to resolve the conflict.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/08/28/216385513/who-are-syrias-friends-and-why-are-they-supporting-assad
-
Dadvokat, the irony of you complaining about infantile name-calling....clearly you don't read your own posts. You do know how to read, don't you....?
I think many of the refugees would be an asset to the country - most of the Syrians I know are quite intelligent, certainly more intelligent than Dadvokat ( judging by his posts), hardworking and resourceful and their children do well at school - the UK economy will probably benefit from their input.
Also, given that the bombing campaign in Syria and this whole situation to topple Assad, an ally of Russia, is severely tainted by U.S. and Saudi's desire to control oil and gas supply to Europe and thereby cut Russia and Iran's revenue, and weaken the Russian and Iranian economies in order to reduce Russian and Iranian influence in the region as well as the domestic popularity of their leaders - I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice while the U.S., Russians, Iranians and Saudis finish the job of reducing their country of birth to rubble, since this war is not going to finish any time soon.
ETA - oops forgot to mention the Iranians. This article explains those supporting Assad against those seeking to overthrow him, and why this means vetoing of any UN resolutions to resolve the conflict.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/08/28/216385513/who-are-syrias-friends-and-why-are-they-supporting-assad
Yes they would be an asset as long as they don't share islamofascist tendencies of some parts of the Muslim community in the UK and rest of Europe. The last thing we need is for some of them to start plotting against the British state and then going to join IS. Eh gabs you were saying? Hope you have offered to take in some Syrian families or are they the wrong type of Muslims?
-
So all 800,000 Syrians being allowed into Europe/Germany are highly qualified engineers and consultants? Wow how lucky we are in Europe to be hosting such a forward looking intelligent people. All we have to worry about is they do not turn against us infidels and do not bring their civil war and inter faith fighting on the streets of Europe. Not sure if Germany are going to take up the Saudi offer of building 200 mosques for the migrants but I suppose that will keep them happy. Do you think Saudis might one day build a church in their country?
-
Oh and gabs why the selective criticism levelled at me about name calling?
Is it cause I is brown? <PMSL>
-
I saw on this mornings news that some of the Syrian refugees in Jordan are thinking of heading towards Greece because the aid has dried up and they are not now getting the £1 a day to live off.
I can't find it now to show you, but this report mentions the aid drying up, perhaps I wasn't watching BBC news
http://www.dw.com/en/new-wave-of-refugees-possible-due-to-cuts-in-un-aid/a-18710185
So even the ones in the rest of the Middle East could be coming.
The gist of the report on this mornings news was that they would prefer to take the risk of the journey rather than watch their children starve.
What an awful situation to be in.
And I agree Julie. The refugee crisis is being faced by Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and not Greece Hungary Austria and other western countries as they are facing an illegal economic migrant crisis. And I hope Cameron's decision to accept 20,000 refugees from un camps happens sooner to alleviate the suffering.
-
Germans having second thoughts? All is not well in Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/13/germany-border-crackdown-deals-blow-to-schengen-system
-
Dadvokat, the irony of you complaining about infantile name-calling....clearly you don't read your own posts. You do know how to read, don't you....?
I think many of the refugees would be an asset to the country - most of the Syrians I know are quite intelligent, certainly more intelligent than Dadvokat ( judging by his posts), hardworking and resourceful and their children do well at school - the UK economy will probably benefit from their input.
Also, given that the bombing campaign in Syria and this whole situation to topple Assad, an ally of Russia, is severely tainted by U.S. and Saudi's desire to control oil and gas supply to Europe and thereby cut Russia and Iran's revenue, and weaken the Russian and Iranian economies in order to reduce Russian and Iranian influence in the region as well as the domestic popularity of their leaders - I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice while the U.S., Russians, Iranians and Saudis finish the job of reducing their country of birth to rubble, since this war is not going to finish any time soon.
ETA - oops forgot to mention the Iranians. This article explains those supporting Assad against those seeking to overthrow him, and why this means vetoing of any UN resolutions to resolve the conflict.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/08/28/216385513/who-are-syrias-friends-and-why-are-they-supporting-assad
Yes they would be an asset as long as they don't share islamofascist tendencies of some parts of the Muslim community in the UK and rest of Europe. The last thing we need is for some of them to start plotting against the British state and then going to join IS. Eh gabs you were saying? Hope you have offered to take in some Syrian families or are they the wrong type of Muslims?
I haven't registered with my local council to house refugees - thanks for reminding me. Given that I benefit from the plots by the US and Saudi governments against the Syrian state regarding oil and gas deals which contributed to the civil war, I would be willing to give up a room in my house for the benefit of the relatively cheap oil that I and my fellow Brits use and profit from. I would probably also temporarily house US and UK oil and gas company executives and UK politicians - though would be a bit wary about the tendency of certain members of the establishment to cover-up sexual abuse, given I have 2 daughters in the house.
I've had refugees I didn't know and my mother didn't know stay with me before when I was a kid, until they found their feet and moved out and brought their family over. In fact the wife of one of those former refugees is currently tutoring my elder daughter in chemistry, physics and biology at a bargain rate, and despite my daughter being diagnosed as dyslexic her school report put her as one of the best at chemistry in her year.
-
Oh and gabs why the selective criticism levelled at me about name calling?
Is it cause I is brown? <PMSL>
I wasn't criticising you for name-calling, I was laughing at you about the irony of you complaining about name-calling. You really should take some lessons in English comprehension so you learn to understand what you read.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34150371
How do you feel about opening up our borders and allowing all the refugees in?
Are people here prepared to share their houses with refugees?
The pictures of the small boy who drowned was very sad and people reacted emotionally to the situation and we now have some celebs claiming our refusal to let them all in, is racist and based on the colour of their skin ( which I think is rubbish)
But can Britain cope? And what about the 13000 homeless people on bristols housing waiting list, that already exist among the people who already live here?
Is it racist to consider the effect on your fellow countrymen?
Why does it cost £50,000 for each unaccompanied child refugee? Most of us don't even earn that much, so our children have to make do with less.
What should we be doing in your opinion?
I'm torn between thinking we can't take large numbers and it isn't fair on people who already live here, and the humanitarian situation.
We have our own people living on the streets, some dying everyday due to pneumonia and other complications... If they cannot look after our own why should you think that they can look after refugees.
We cannot take more people. Let America or France or Germany take them.
UK is fast becoming the dumping ground for the unwanted nations of the world.
Send them back and give them the aid at home. If it is food and a home they want then let the leaders give them the aid in their own country,
-
Dadvokat, the irony of you complaining about infantile name-calling....clearly you don't read your own posts. You do know how to read, don't you....?
I think many of the refugees would be an asset to the country - most of the Syrians I know are quite intelligent, certainly more intelligent than Dadvokat ( judging by his posts), hardworking and resourceful and their children do well at school - the UK economy will probably benefit from their input.
So their intelligence is going to feed them is it?
We have intelligent people here already who cannot get jobs and have no homes.
As for benefiting the economy how does putting our own on the streets for refugees benefit the economy?
Also, given that the bombing campaign in Syria and this whole situation to topple Assad, an ally of Russia, is severely tainted by U.S. and Saudi's desire to control oil and gas supply to Europe and thereby cut Russia and Iran's revenue, and weaken the Russian and Iranian economies in order to reduce Russian and Iranian influence in the region as well as the domestic popularity of their leaders - I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice while the U.S., Russians, Iranians and Saudis finish the job of reducing their country of birth to rubble, since this war is not going to finish any time soon.
War or no War THIS Country cannot afford these refugees.
ETA - oops forgot to mention the Iranians. This article explains those supporting Assad against those seeking to overthrow him, and why this means vetoing of any UN resolutions to resolve the conflict.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/08/28/216385513/who-are-syrias-friends-and-why-are-they-supporting-assad
No reasons given to support refugees coming here or how we afford to keep them
See to our own homeless first then look to help others.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34150371
How do you feel about opening up our borders and allowing all the refugees in?
Are people here prepared to share their houses with refugees?
The pictures of the small boy who drowned was very sad and people reacted emotionally to the situation and we now have some celebs claiming our refusal to let them all in, is racist and based on the colour of their skin ( which I think is rubbish)
But can Britain cope? And what about the 13000 homeless people on bristols housing waiting list, that already exist among the people who already live here?
Is it racist to consider the effect on your fellow countrymen?
Why does it cost £50,000 for each unaccompanied child refugee? Most of us don't even earn that much, so our children have to make do with less.
What should we be doing in your opinion?
I'm torn between thinking we can't take large numbers and it isn't fair on people who already live here, and the humanitarian situation.
We have our own people living on the streets, some dying everyday due to pneumonia and other complications... If they cannot look after our own why should you think that they can look after refugees.
We cannot take more people. Let America or France or Germany take them.
UK is fast becoming the dumping ground for the unwanted nations of the world.
Send them back and give them the aid at home. If it is food and a home they want then let the leaders give them the aid in their own country,
Their country is in the middle of a civil war, which by the way various weapons manufacturers are making money from - you should check out the profits made by these companies and the news reports of bribes paid to secure contracts during these turbulent times. So no, they can't be given aid in their own country until the war stops and whichever of our oil and gas companies do whatever deals they need to do with the new government. Also, the aid money has run out in the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon - there is a severe shortfall in aid funding, so the people have to leave the camps and head to nearby Europe if they want to stay alive.
-
So their intelligence is going to feed them is it?
Yes - intelligence and hard-work - the refugees and migrants I know do multiple, non-professional jobs, share accommodation, are very frugal in their spending and manage to even save money and pay tax.
War or no War THIS Country cannot afford these refugees.
The refugees seem to disagree with you - hence they are coming legally or illegally.
-
Borders closing?!!
https://in.news.yahoo.com/austria-lets-migrants-unhindered-despite-germany-checks-085612571.html
*************************************************************************
Two decades of frontier-free travel across Europe unravelled on Monday as countries re-established border controls in the face of an unprecedented influx of migrants, which broke the record for the most arrivals by land in a single day.
Germany's surprise decision to restore border controls on Sunday had a swift domino effect, prompting neighbours to impose checks at their own frontiers as thousands of refugees pressed north and west across the continent while Hungary sealed the main informal border crossing point into the European Union.
A majority of EU interior ministers, meeting in Brussels, agreed in principle to share out 120,000 asylum seekers on top of some 40,000 distributed on a voluntary basis so far, EU president Luxembourg said. But details of the deal, to be formalised on Oct. 8, were vague with several ex-Communist central European states still rejecting mandatory quotas.
*************************************************************************
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34150371
How do you feel about opening up our borders and allowing all the refugees in?
Are people here prepared to share their houses with refugees?
The pictures of the small boy who drowned was very sad and people reacted emotionally to the situation and we now have some celebs claiming our refusal to let them all in, is racist and based on the colour of their skin ( which I think is rubbish)
But can Britain cope? And what about the 13000 homeless people on bristols housing waiting list, that already exist among the people who already live here?
Is it racist to consider the effect on your fellow countrymen?
Why does it cost £50,000 for each unaccompanied child refugee? Most of us don't even earn that much, so our children have to make do with less.
What should we be doing in your opinion?
I'm torn between thinking we can't take large numbers and it isn't fair on people who already live here, and the humanitarian situation.
We have our own people living on the streets, some dying everyday due to pneumonia and other complications... If they cannot look after our own why should you think that they can look after refugees.
We cannot take more people. Let America or France or Germany take them.
UK is fast becoming the dumping ground for the unwanted nations of the world.
Send them back and give them the aid at home. If it is food and a home they want then let the leaders give them the aid in their own country,
Their country is in the middle of a civil war, which by the way various weapons manufacturers are making money from - you should check out the profits made by these companies and the news reports of bribes paid to secure contracts during these turbulent times. So no, they can't be given aid in their own country until the war stops and whichever of our oil and gas companies do whatever deals they need to do with the new government. Also, the aid money has run out in the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon - there is a severe shortfall in aid funding, so the people have to leave the camps and head to nearby Europe if they want to stay alive.
And therein lies the answer.... Are they really refugees? Or just escaping the war their leaders have created?
Our Gas and oil companies are NOT at war with their country.
Where do you think the funding will come from in this Country? What makes us responsible for all those other nations...NOTHING. But UK are always the dumping ground and the money givers. Their wars are their responsibility just as the people are their own countries responsibility. Just as our people are own responsibility and need to be put first.
IT ISN'T OUR RESPONSIBILITY...
It is like Marie Antoinette saying "They have no read...then let them eat cake." If there is no bread there is no bloody cake and we cannot afford to look after our own let alone other foreign countries shortfall.
We did NOT start their war. We are NOT responsible for their war. So we are not responsible for their NEED to BUY weapons. Something which every country has to do if they go to war.
Do something about their camps and do somethings about stopping weapons being sold.
But bringing them here in a country overflowing with foreigners is not the answer.
We as British People are losing our voice and right to say because of so many refugees already here. It is time to shut the flood gates before the dam breaks. IT is time to look after our own and give our surplus to the rest.
-
So their intelligence is going to feed them is it?
Yes - intelligence and hard-work - the refugees and migrants I know do multiple, non-professional jobs, share accommodation, are very frugal in their spending and manage to even save money and pay tax.
Are you really so blind. There are no jobs for our own and the refugees already here. There is not enough homes for those already here. This is OUR Country let their own Country provide for them or relinquish control to other outside powers who can.
War or no War THIS Country cannot afford these refugees.
The refugees seem to disagree with you - hence they are coming legally or illegally.
[/quote]
Whether they agree or not. They are NOT UK citizens and are not native of the UK.
May be the governments of other countries should seize power in their countries and send them back. Oh no! it would not be right for you to allow that to happen but it is okay for them to over run our Country and make it so eventually they can take our Country.
No we are tired of being the worlds dumping ground. If we had not had ancestors and family who worked to make this country what it is today then these people would not be coming here would they. No let them make their own country livable. Let them ask other countries to intervene and take their country back and bring peace. We have our own to look after first then we can take care of the rest.
As for you are you BRITISH BORN IN THE UK? Well then you have no say...
-
And you call yourself a 'Christian' Sass? :o Your comments make me want to vomit! >:(
-
I haven't read the most recent posts, so am not sure whether this has been said before, but I wonder how much of a disservice we are doing to the countries from which these refugees are coming. Some time in the next few years, it is likely that a country like Syria will stabilise and need educated and otherwise wealthy people to run the administrations that run the country.
Germany have already stated that they will accept the million-odd migrants asking to go there on the grounds that they have an aging population and decreasing birth rate, and therefore need a fresh influx of the young and able. They are not going to be happy or willing(?) to let these important replacements go back to Syria or wherever they originated from once those places stabilise.
In a way, this willingness to take these educated refugees is simply exacerbating the rich get richer and the poor get poorer syndrome that bedevils humanity - just on a national, as opposed to an individual level.
-
Nice article.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34270077
**************************************************************************
1. Syrians are a small minority of those seeking refuge. While the tragedy of those fleeing Syria's terrible civil war has caught the popular imagination, such people formed just 20.1% of those seeking asylum in Germany from January to August 2015.
If you add together the Balkan arrivals (from Albania, Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia) they amount to twice that, 40.2%. The figures for those granted refuge are quite different because many of the applications from Balkan countries are rejected.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that tens of thousands of people from relatively peaceful countries have joined the trek to Germany, which is seen as one of the most desirable places in Europe to live.
To put it more bluntly: they are taking advantage of and increasing this crisis.ge in Germany.
2. While many people have argued that fences "will never work", the early signs are that Mr Orban's policy of sealing the Hungarian-Serbian border is already having the effect he wanted. It channels people to registration areas (from where they can continue to Germany or elsewhere) and dissuades others from trying to cross.
It will be interesting to see whether those trying to circumvent the fence include many from those Balkan and other nationalities with weaker grounds for asylum.
3. The most desperate may avoid Europe. One of the most shocking aspects of the Syrian story is the degree to which donor countries have reduced aid to the refugee camps or failed to keep pace with the growing numbers in them.
Food aid for refugee camps in Jordan has therefore been halved recently and many who live in rented accommodation away from camps now no longer get it at all.
Firstly, thousands of refugees are returning to Syria - aid agencies say the numbers doing that have doubled in recent months. Secondly, people are trying to find cheaper ways to Europe.
Reports this week suggest large numbers of people in Erdine and Istanbul bus stations seeking to travel towards Bulgaria. This is a way of avoiding the costly Mediterranean crossing (and also, potentially, Hungary's fence).
4. From the outset, Germany has sought help by appealing to other European nations to show solidarity, particularly in the matter of receiving more migrants and indeed accepting binding quotas on them.
In the end it is the particular desirability of certain countries, notably Germany, that makes it so hard to find quick or indeed more equitable solutions.
Mrs Merkel's nation not only faces long-term demographic issues without migration but is the richest and most desirable destination in Europe. In this, as in the Euro crisis, German leadership is central.
5. This week's reimposition of border controls has led some to predict the imminent demise of the Schengen system of unrestricted travel. Last week it was the survival of another principle, enshrined in the Dublin Regulations, which stipulates refugees must seek asylum in the first EU country they reach, that seemed to be in doubt.
The direction of travel now appears to be in the direction of a reassertion of the Dublin Regulations.
This would see large facilities planned in those countries where the largest numbers arrive in the EU, many more deportations of those not granted asylum and the possibility of assessment camps being set up in north Africa too.
Little by little Europe is shutting its back doors.
*****************************************************************************
-
Here is a video which is perhaps controversial but interesting. Worth watching!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ztp2GWOrck
-
Here is a video which is perhaps controversial but interesting. Worth watching!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ztp2GWOrck
Yes, it is interesting but it's also a propaganda video. We have the BNP and the EDL but there are a lot of other 'splinter' groups, and this is just another.
-
So gabs one non English brown person criticising another non English brown person's use of English language is IRONY indeed.
Also you want 17 million Syrians assimilated in Europe as anecdotally you have found them and other asylum seekers to be very intelligent and hard working and productive. Strange really as you couldn't have spoken to too many Syrian women as I have read a report that even before the civil war less then 13% of women in Syria were working as they needed their husbands (fathers) permission to work. They will be productive indeed in Germany as mutti merkel wants baby breeding machines to increase Germany's population. And do look up the socio economic stats for the Somali community in the UK and Europe to disprove your claim about asylum seekers alleged productivity.
-
Observing events unfold in Europe as the economic migrants mainly young men demand to move across Europe without being registered or fingerprinted I must say that Cameron has played a blinder. By accepting 20,000 real refugees from the camps he has set an example of not rewarding those people who have paid people smugglers tens of thousands of pounds to ferry them undocumented to Western Europe. Let the Europeans fight amongst themselves thanks to merkel not putting her brain into gear before opening her big gob.
-
All's not well in mutti merkels 'Deutschland uber alles' Utopian paradise.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/29/fresh-calls-segregation-germanys-migrant-camps-battles-rage/
-
So gabs one non English brown person criticising another non English brown person's use of English language is IRONY indeed.
Why is it ironic? Are you under the impression that skin-colour has any bearing on the ability to use the English language? English was exported to many former colonies. My mother used to correct my spelling when I wrote her letters from university and she studied English in India while I went to school here, so no I don't see it as note-worthy for a non-English brown person to criticise my English.
Also you want 17 million Syrians assimilated in Europe as anecdotally you have found them and other asylum seekers to be very intelligent and hard working and productive. Strange really as you couldn't have spoken to too many Syrian women as I have read a report that even before the civil war less then 13% of women in Syria were working as they needed their husbands (fathers) permission to work. They will be productive indeed in Germany as mutti merkel wants baby breeding machines to increase Germany's population. And do look up the socio economic stats for the Somali community in the UK and Europe to disprove your claim about asylum seekers alleged productivity.
I didn't mention 17 million Syrians or the Somali community. I expressed the opinion that the Syrians I have encountered have been intelligent and hard-working, as are many other refugees I have encountered, so they would probably be an asset.
I believe the Syrian refugees are coming to Europe in order to provide a future for their kids. Only a small percentage of the children in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan are enrolled in school, as they need to work instead of go to school in order to feed their family as the donor aid has run out. Oxfam issued a statement that “With inadequate aid funds, more people in need will have to resort to desperate survival strategies such as child labour or early marriage,”
-
So gabs one non English brown person criticising another non English brown person's use of English language is IRONY indeed.
Why is it ironic? Are you under the impression that skin-colour has any bearing on the ability to use the English language? English was exported to many former colonies. My mother used to correct my spelling when I wrote her letters from university and she studied English in India while I went to school here, so no I don't see it as note-worthy for a non-English brown person to criticise my English.
Also you want 17 million Syrians assimilated in Europe as anecdotally you have found them and other asylum seekers to be very intelligent and hard working and productive. Strange really as you couldn't have spoken to too many Syrian women as I have read a report that even before the civil war less then 13% of women in Syria were working as they needed their husbands (fathers) permission to work. They will be productive indeed in Germany as mutti merkel wants baby breeding machines to increase Germany's population. And do look up the socio economic stats for the Somali community in the UK and Europe to disprove your claim about asylum seekers alleged productivity.
I didn't mention 17 million Syrians or the Somali community. I expressed the opinion that the Syrians I have encountered have been intelligent and hard-working, as are many other refugees I have encountered, so they would probably be an asset.
I believe the Syrian refugees are coming to Europe in order to provide a future for their kids. Only a small percentage of the children in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan are enrolled in school, as they need to work instead of go to school in order to feed their family as the donor aid has run out. Oxfam issued a statement that “With inadequate aid funds, more people in need will have to resort to desperate survival strategies such as child labour or early marriage,”
And of course you never indulge in infantile name calling - Kettle pot black eh gabs? I thought <pmsl> at the end of my sentence would have given you a clue that your leg was being pulled.
You did state that based on your anecdotal evidence of meeting a few syrian refugees who were highly qualified and motivated you thought that Syrians should be allowed to reside as refugees in any EU member state they chose. I am sure some member states have employment opportunities for camel breeders, fruit sellers, halal butchers and goat and sheep herders. How many Syrians should EU let in? 800,000, 2 million, 17 million? I pointed out to you that only 13% of Syrian women worked so they couldn't be too productive in Europe apart from being baby breeding machines that mutti merkel wants possibly. And of course from the EU stats almost 70% of those so called Syrian migrants (you do know tens of thousands of Syrian passports are on sale?) who have made it to Europe are young single males. Perhaps they will call for their families at a later date. Hope the EU member states have enough housing to accommodate everyone knocking at the door for years to come. Also I thought that if you were a refugee you couldn't pick and choose which country you wanted to claim asylum in? You seem to be under the impression that they could?
-
For the benefit of people like you who need to go to remedial English classes, I wasn't complaining about your name-calling. I was commenting on the irony of you whinging about someone else name calling, when you indulge in it so eagerly yourself at every opportunity - probably because you don't seem to have the brains to actually debate an issue. My only point was that given your tendency to call people names on this MB, you look utterly ridiculous when you whinge and try to act like a victim on here.
Also, I didn't say the Syrians (refugees or otherwise) whom I had met were highly qualified. I just said they were intelligent, hard-working and resourceful and that they were a motivated bunch - which would be useful for the societies they joined. You were the person who said anything about them being highly qualified engineers and consultants. Like I said, you will find it useful to go to remedial English classes before you take part in any more discussions on here.
As for whether the Syrians "should" be allowed to settle in Europe - as far as I am concerned if their neighbourhoods are being bombed by ISIS or other anti-Assad rebel forces or Assad's own forces on behalf of the US/ UK/ European/Russian/ Saudi governments, and if there is no more money to feed, house, educate millions of them or their families in refugee camps in Lebanon/ Jordan/ Turkey and no job opportunities for them because they are denied work permits in those countries, then they would have to settle in Europe.
"Should" doesn't really come into it - assuming they are not all willing to die in order to not inconvenience you, your way of life, or current standard of living. If I was in their predicament, I would head to where I had a hope of having some future. Single young men travelling to a foreign country as refugees or migrants and sending money back home or sending for their family later once they have the means, is pretty standard - it's been happening for centuries.
-
And it's noted that you resort to name calling when you get uncomfortable with what is being discussed. Do you think you can extrapolate your anecdotal experience of meeting several Syrian migrants to hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of Syrians? I asked you about Somali community in the UK and Europe and their socio economic stats and how well they have integrated? I also commented on the productivity of Syrian women and how useful they would be to the economy when only 13% worked in Syria. But then your modus operandi is well known. Evade anything you find uncomfortable and divert discussion away from topic under discussion. Write reams of totally irrelevant tripe and pass it off as something 'intelligent'.
Btw, why should Syrian economic migrants be allowed to roam around Europe and pick and choose their country where they want to claim asylum in? The EU rules are that third country nationals should claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. Also why should Germany, Sweden, UK and other European countries offer asylum when they haven't been responsible for bombing Syria? Why can't other Arab/ Muslim countries offer sanctuary to their fellow co-religionists? Surely they would be ,more comfortable in Muslim Saudi Arabia/ Gulf States then Christian Germany/Sweden/UK? Is it because not all is well amongst the ummah with the continuation of 1400 year old old Sunni/Shia schism in the Muslim world and the tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Islam.
-
So German authorities are now estimating no of asylum claims this year will double to 1.5 million from previous estimate of 800,000. Doubts expressed whether services will be able to cope.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3344883/posts
-
And it's noted that you resort to name calling when you get uncomfortable with what is being discussed.
I haven't been on here much recently and can't remember calling anyone names, but to jog my memory feel free to present some evidence that I have called people names. Otherwise, you noting anything is probably as accurate as your ability to comprehend English. I do label some posts as stupid or denigrate some "special" people's powers of comprehension or debating ability and I am pretty sure I would have been very comfortable at the time and probably enjoyed it.
Do you think you can extrapolate your anecdotal experience of meeting several Syrian migrants to hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of Syrians?
I think the refugees and migrants will be similar to the people in the host communities in Europe - i.e. given similar opportunities of education and social stability, some refugees will excel, some will do ok and some will need to be carried. I don't have a problem with that.
I asked you about Somali community in the UK and Europe and their socio economic stats and how well they have integrated?
I am discussing the Syrian refugees, so the Somalian community does not have much relevance to this discussion. Are you extrapolating the experiences of the Somalian community to the Syrian refugees?I also commented on the productivity of Syrian women and how useful they would be to the economy when only 13% worked in Syria.
Most of the refugees are single men. I imagine that there will be more opportunities for Syrian women to enter the work force in Europe and more of a necessity for them to do so. But if Syrian women refugees are being productive bringing up children in a family unit, I think they are as useful to the economy as working men, since that would reduce some of the costs to society of the downside of two working parents, even if we lose the benefit of an additional worker and the benefits of financial independence of both parents.
But then your modus operandi is well known. Evade anything you find uncomfortable and divert discussion away from topic under discussion. Write reams of totally irrelevant tripe and pass it off as something 'intelligent'.
In other words you can't handle it if someone else holds a different opinion from you and you find it difficult to understand what is written in posts. Yes well, we already established that your powers of comprehension are pretty limited.
Btw, why should Syrian economic migrants be allowed to roam around Europe and pick and choose their country where they want to claim asylum in? The EU rules are that third country nationals should claim asylum in the first safe country they come to.
I am pretty sure you would be singing a different tune if Britain had a different geographical location and was the first country they came to. In that situation, I am pretty sure you would be insistent that other countries take their fair share of refugees.
Also why should Germany, Sweden, UK and other European countries offer asylum when they haven't been responsible for bombing Syria?
Because it is a humane thing to do. Also because the UK, Germany and France have been benefiting economically and politically from selling weapons used in the war in Syria. Where do you think the various groups in Syria are getting their arms from? 41% of UK arms exports go to Saudi Arabia. Saudi works with British and US intelligence to get weapons and funding to anti-Assad forces, which have also often ended up in the hands of ISIS. Meanwhile Russia is supplying weapons to pro-Assad forces. This war is set to run and run, hence the flow of people coming out of Syria.
The volume of international transfers of major weapons in 2010–14 was 16 per cent higher than in 2005–2009 (see figure 1). The five biggest exporters in 2010–14 were the United States, Russia, China, Germany and France,and the five biggest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, China, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Pakistan.The flow of arms to Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, and the Middle East increased significantly between 2005–2009 and 2010–14, while there was a notable decrease in the flow to Europe.
In 2010–14 Saudi Arabia became the world’s second largest arms importer, receiving four times more major arms than in 2005–2009. Major imports in 2010–14 included 45 combat aircraft from the UK, 38 combat helicopters from the USA, 4 tanker aircraft from Spain and over 600 armoured vehicles from Canada. Saudi Arabia has a long list of outstanding orders for arms, including 27 more combat aircraft from the UK, 154 combat aircraft from the USA and a large number of armoured vehicles from Canada.
http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1503.pdf
I guess they get weapons and pass them on to various factions, and we all get the refugees those weapons create.
Why can't other Arab/ Muslim countries offer sanctuary to their fellow co-religionists? Surely they would be ,more comfortable in Muslim Saudi Arabia/ Gulf States then Christian Germany/Sweden/UK? Is it because not all is well amongst the ummah with the continuation of 1400 year old old Sunni/Shia schism in the Muslim world and the tacit acknowledgement of the failure of Islam.
I already pointed out that Saudi has apparently taken in 500,000 Syrians - they just don't refer to them as refugees. But yes, the refugees feel more welcome in Europe. And yes there are issues caused by extremists and politicians exploiting the Sunni-Shia divide, though before the various recent invasions and uprisings in the ME against secular leaders, the Sunni and Shia communities had got on fairly ok for quite a long time and some people inter-married between the 2 communities.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/syria-s-refugees-feel-more-welcome-in-europe-than-in-the-gulf
-
Gabriella, I know little about the religious divide but my gut feeling is that the beliefs of the weak and credulous are getting stoked by people whose aims ultimately will be secular - wealth and power. Do you agree?
-
Absolutely. I agree with you. Religion has often been exploited by secular as well as religious leaders as one way of gaining support and establishing social control and consolidating their wealth and power. But I don't agree that these problems would go away if religion ceased to exist.
I think class divides, political allegiances, threats to withdraw financial support and patronage, any kind of 'tribal' or sectarian loyalty can be exploited to pressure people to support a particular leader and discriminate against others.
Fear of the "other" is also a useful device in gaining political support and those in power can use that fear to get acquiescence from the credulous to erosion of freedoms of the governed.
-
How many refugees has Iran and Saudi Arabia taken?
-
Comprehend English, Debating ability? At least gabs I don't bore people by posting reams of unadulterated tripe and textual diarrhoea and try and pass this off as intellectual discourse. I don't duck and dive and evade difficult points.
You talk about your anecdotal experience of several Syrians you have met who excel given opportunities. I asked you why Somalis haven't excelled and you have gone all coy. I wonder why? You have also claimed that Syrians should be able to claim asylum in any EU member state they want. I reminded you about EU laws called Dublin Regulation where a Third country national must claim asylum in the first safe member state they enter. You have suddenly been rendered speechless. (You could have bluffed your way out and claimed as some Muslims have that it's allah's world and a Muslim should be able to move anywhere they want unhindered.) You claim Saudi Arabia has taken 500,000 Syrians except they haven't been accepted as refugees or asylum seekers. They have only taken Syrians who are already working in other Arab countries and have been issued with work permits. You also write a thesis on Saudi arms purchases and countries who supply arms? Of course there is an arms race in various parts of the world so what? Who is forcing Arabs/Muslims to use these American/Russian/European arms to kill other Arabs/Muslims who have bought the same arms from the same sources? Why are Saudis bombing the sh1t out of Yemen? Ah yes houthi rebels in Yemen are being armed by Iran and it all boils down to Sunni-Shia conflict is it not? Stop blaming the west for the unresolved problems dating back to 632AD in the Muslim world. The west will sell arms to gullible oil rich Arab/Iranian/African States as that's how they make money to fuel their economies. Learn to deal with this reality - it ain't going to change anytime soon. Only if the ordinary citizens of these countries are educated and learn to recognise what is happening will they rise up and get rid of the their political masters.
-
What's that you were saying about textual diarrhoea?
-
What's that you were saying about textual diarrhoea?
My number 1 fan following me around. How sweet.
Did you have anything intelligent to add to the topic?
-
No.
Just like you.
-
No.
Just like you.
Nice of you to drop by.
Adios.
-
Comprehend English, Debating ability? At least gabs I don't bore people by posting reams of unadulterated tripe and textual diarrhoea and try and pass this off as intellectual discourse. I don't duck and dive and evade difficult points.
Yes - I agree it's beyond your ability to comprehend complexity so you find it boring. Stick to Kindergarten if you want everything black and white and in words of one syllable. And when you can't understand the responses to your point or you don't like your opinion being disagreed with, your standard response is to claim the person is ducking and diving.
You talk about your anecdotal experience of several Syrians you have met who excel given opportunities. I asked you why Somalis haven't excelled and you have gone all coy. I wonder why?
You have not answered the question about whether you are extrapolating the experience of the Somali community to the Syrian community. Why so coy? Nor have you answered the question about why the Somali community are relevant to a thread that was started about the Syrian refugees. Why so coy?
You have also claimed that Syrians should be able to claim asylum in any EU member state they want. I reminded you about EU laws called Dublin Regulation where a Third country national must claim asylum in the first safe member state they enter. You have suddenly been rendered speechless. (You could have bluffed your way out and claimed as some Muslims have that it's allah's world and a Muslim should be able to move anywhere they want unhindered.)
No - I haven't been rendered speechless, you just can't read. I said that if Britain was in a different location in Europe and was therefore the first safe member state the refugees enter, you would be demanding that other states take their fair share of refugees. The story in the OP was about the Mayor of Bristol wanting to take in Syrian refugees and calls for every city in Britain to take in 10 refugee families following the photo of a 3 year old drowned Syrian boy.
You claim Saudi Arabia has taken 500,000 Syrians except they haven't been accepted as refugees or asylum seekers. They have only taken Syrians who are already working in other Arab countries and have been issued with work permits.
I stated the claims of the Saudi Foreign Ministry regarding Syrian refugees. You can read here their claim that they have taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/21059-saudi-we-have-taken-in-25m-syrian-refugees
It's up to you whether you want to believe them or believe some other unverified source of information on the internet. It's not like you or I are ever going to investigate the issue and do a count of the number of Syrian refugees in Saudi.
You also write a thesis on Saudi arms purchases and countries who supply arms?
I copied and pasted 2 short paragraphs of stats - which clearly your two brain cells could not cope with, hence you view that as some kind of thesis.
Of course there is an arms race in various parts of the world so what? Who is forcing Arabs/Muslims to use these American/Russian/European arms to kill other Arabs/Muslims who have bought the same arms from the same sources? Why are Saudis bombing the sh1t out of Yemen? Ah yes houthi rebels in Yemen are being armed by Iran and it all boils down to Sunni-Shia conflict is it not? Stop blaming the west for the unresolved problems dating back to 632AD in the Muslim world. The west will sell arms to gullible oil rich Arab/Iranian/African States as that's how they make money to fuel their economies. Learn to deal with this reality - it ain't going to change anytime soon.
It's similar to the gun control argument - if the countries were not awash with these weapons, the militants would not be able to kill people on the scale that they do, neighbourhoods could not be bombed to destruction and people would not need to flee the country. I am not blaming the West - I am just stating that part of the reality, as you like to call it, is that our economy benefits from the sale of arms and clearly part of the cost of sales is the expense of taking in the resulting refugees fleeing from being massacred by the weapons we sold. Conflict is not just confined to the Middle East, so it seems the Sunni-Shia divide in the ME is probably being encouraged and exaggerated today by political figures as some kind of smokescreen for other agendas.
By the way, when the US/UK helped depose the elected leader of Iran in 1952 and install the secular Shah and his feared secret torture police, who was then overthrown by the Iranian revolution in 1979, was that due to the Sunni-Shia divide as well or was it due to nationalisation of iranian oil fields that reduced Britain's oil income?
Is the US/UK governments' current political and military support of the Saudi government caused by the Sunni-Shia divide or is it about money and oil?
Only if the ordinary citizens of these countries are educated and learn to recognise what is happening will they rise up and get rid of the their political masters.
Whatever. Until that happens we, the ordinary citizens, will take in refugees and pay the price of having reduced public services even as we benefit from the revenue generated in our economy by the sale of weapons and the purchase of cheap oil.
No doubt the weapons manufacturers' directors and shareholders will feel very grateful to us while they watch their bonuses and share prices go up with each additional conflict. And their commissions to asset managers who manage their considerable funds will put a smile on their faces and the corporate and personal donations to the party campaign coffers will also bring a smile to the faces of the politicians, and no doubt any resulting peerage will be equally welcome. All very cosy.
-
Ok you really have stretched a point about my poor comprehension ability. You need to repeat it to convince yourself that you are scoring a cheap point but you come across as desperate. You must have been told that you are a legend in your own mind and writing reams of boring irrelevance proves zilch.
In post#100 this is what you wrote
'- I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice ' Really? Why can they pick and choose any European country they fancy regardless of which EU member state they enter first. Are they asylum seekers or economic migrants? You haven't explained?
In post#112
'Yes - intelligence and hard-work - the refugees and migrants I know do multiple, non-professional jobs, share accommodation, are very frugal in their spending and manage to even save money and pay tax.' So you have not met any Somali asylum seekers and migrants? Strange that. Evasion noted.
In post #127
'As for whether the Syrians "should" be allowed to settle in Europe - as far as I am concerned if their neighbourhoods are being bombed by ISIS or other anti-Assad rebel forces or Assad's own forces on behalf of the US/ UK/ European/Russian/ Saudi governments, and if there is no more money to feed, house, educate millions of them or their families in refugee camps in Lebanon/ Jordan/ Turkey and no job opportunities for them because they are denied work permits in those countries, then they would have to settle in Europe.'
So you claim that Assad/IS have been bombing syrian people on behalf of the UK? Really?
And you defend Saudis in this post :
'I stated the claims of the Saudi Foreign Ministry regarding Syrian refugees. You can read here their claim that they have taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees.'
For an Islamist like you who would smell a conspiracy theory in the London directory, You seem to be easily taken in by Saudi propaganda.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/tag/saudi-arabia/
-
Ok you really have stretched a point about my poor comprehension ability. You need to repeat it to convince yourself that you are scoring a cheap point but you come across as desperate. You must have been told that you are a legend in your own mind and writing reams of boring irrelevance proves zilch.
Not stretching the point - since it's relevant to every new response you make - you clearly have problems comprehending what you read. I don't come across as desperate, just accurate where your posts are concerned.
In post#100 this is what you wrote
'- I figure the Syrian refugees might as well settle down and start populating the European country of their choice ' Really? Why can they pick and choose any European country they fancy regardless of which EU member state they enter first. Are they asylum seekers or economic migrants? You haven't explained?
. I have explained repeatedly - I think it is fair that each state takes in refugees rather than all the refugees end up in the states closest to the crisis. And if Germany has offered to take them, or British cities have offered to take them, and they want to go there - I think they should be able to make that choice to settle in the cities they have been offered refuge.
In post#112
'Yes - intelligence and hard-work - the refugees and migrants I know do multiple, non-professional jobs, share accommodation, are very frugal in their spending and manage to even save money and pay tax.' So you have not met any Somali asylum seekers and migrants? Strange that. Evasion noted.
I don't know anyone who has identified themselves as a Somali asylum seeker or migrant, so have no idea about their job situation or accommodation or spending habits. We have no Somali clients so I have no information on the tax they pay. I have met people from the Somali community at my local mosque but never spoken to them at length. I might have spoken at length to other people who might have been from the Somali community but they did not identify themselves as Somalian asylum seekers or refugees.
You still haven't answered the question about whether you are extrapolating the experiences of the Somali community to Syrian refugees, or why the Somali community is relevant to this thread. Evasion noted.
In post #127
'As for whether the Syrians "should" be allowed to settle in Europe - as far as I am concerned if their neighbourhoods are being bombed by ISIS or other anti-Assad rebel forces or Assad's own forces on behalf of the US/ UK/ European/Russian/ Saudi governments, and if there is no more money to feed, house, educate millions of them or their families in refugee camps in Lebanon/ Jordan/ Turkey and no job opportunities for them because they are denied work permits in those countries, then they would have to settle in Europe.'
So you claim that Assad/IS have been bombing syrian people on behalf of the UK? Really?
No - that's your comprehension problem rearing its head again. The "/" means "or" as opposed to "and". It is in the UK interest to support certain rebel groups in Syria. Who knows, at some point they may decide to support Assad as the lesser evil compared to ISIS.
And you defend Saudis in this post :
'I stated the claims of the Saudi Foreign Ministry regarding Syrian refugees. You can read here their claim that they have taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees.'
For an Islamist like you who would smell a conspiracy theory in the London directory, You seem to be easily taken in by Saudi propaganda.
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/tag/saudi-arabia/
That's your comprehension problems rearing its head again - along with selective quoting by you. I said the Saudi claims could not be verified, any more than the claims you have linked to about the Saudi claims. You really should get help with your inability to comprehend English.
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Do they mine comes back with whataboutery.
-
Comprehension you say? Desperation I say..
I have explained to you already - Before Germans made a unilateral decision to take in these economic migrants, there was EU directive called the Dublin Regulation which stipulated that third country nationals have to claim asylum in the first EU member state they enter. Comprehension problems, methinks.
You might not have met Somalis but would have read about a community which came to the UK as asylum seekers/economic migrants and number about 200,000 in this country. FGM has been in the news recently. stick your fingers in your ears, not listening, lalala.
The UK is/is not responsible for bombing Assad -still not clear!
Defending Saudis for turning their back on the ummah!
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.
I love you too, darling
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Do they mine comes back with whataboutery.
What's your definition of whataboutery? Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?
This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).
I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.
Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.
-
Comprehension you say? Desperation I say..
I have explained to you already - Before Germans made a unilateral decision to take in these economic migrants, there was EU directive called the Dublin Regulation which stipulated that third country nationals have to claim asylum in the first EU member state they enter. Comprehension problems, methinks.
And I have explained to you many times that various people think this is unfair to the states closest to the crisis, who are unable to cope with the numbers. If you are unable to comprehend this don't worry - luckily the Mayor of Bristol and various councillors and politicians have far less difficulty in comprehending this than you have, and have far more influence than you on the final decision. Would you have preferred it if the refugees had been left to starve in camps?
You might not have met Somalis but would have read about a community which came to the UK as asylum seekers/economic migrants and number about 200,000 in this country. FGM has been in the news recently. stick your fingers in your ears, not listening, lalala
And the relevance to Syrians is .....?
The UK is/is not responsible for bombing Assad -still not clear!
The UK is supporting moderate anti-Assad rebels. The UK is selling large quantities of arms to their friends, the Saudi government, and these weapons are being passed onto anti-Assad forces, but shipments also get diverted using private Saudi funds, to ISIS or they get stolen or they get captured - the end result is ISIS have a lot of weapons and ammunition. Any clearer now?
Defending Saudis for turning their back on the ummah!
Yes I agree - the UK government is defending the Saudis, by supporting them politically and selling them weapons. Well done for at least grasping that much.
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Thanks :)
-
And it doesn't matter what people think whether certain countries have to accept more asylum claims compared to others based on their geographical position. That's why Dublin convention and regulation came into force. It was to stop asylum shopping. Do keep up!
Who the feck is mayor of Bristol and how much power does he wield? It's up to the government in power to decide whether to accept refugees and how many. They will then decide with consultation with various local councils on how refugees can be dispersed.
I have made it quite clear that Cameron has made the right decision to accept 20,000 refugees from the camps instead of rewarding those young economic migrants (quite a few who are non-Syrian) who have muscled their way through to various European member states without any respect for EU laws.
Relevance of Somalis to Syrians? You are acting dumb even after I explained to you that Somalis have come to the UK as asylum seekers/migrants just as Syrians have. You claim that Syrians you have met are hard working, pay their taxes etc. I asked you to compare if this applies to Somalis and any other similar community?
So you insist that the UK should accept these Syrians as you claim they have provided arms to the rebels. But you think it's ok if the Saudis, Russians and Iranians do not accept any refugees. As for Saudis, the operative word is refugee not temporary workers from Syria already working in the Middle East labelled officially as 'Arab brothers and sisters in distress'. And no they haven't accepted any refugees.
Any clearer now?
-
Whenever I read Gabriella reply to dadvokat, my mind re-arranges the following words into a well known phrase 'plate your arse to handed you on a'
Brown nosing and insane comes to my mind when I read your posts. Har bloody Har.
I love you too, darling
Feeling ain't mutual I am afraid. ;)
-
And it doesn't matter what people think whether certain countries have to accept more asylum claims compared to others based on their geographical position. That's why Dublin convention and regulation came into force. It was to stop asylum shopping. Do keep up!
Actually it does matter that the German and French governments decided Dublin was unfair to Greece, which couldn't cope with the unprecedented numbers, and to the refugees themselves, and Germany suspended Dublin in relation to Syrian refugees.
Dublin has been criticised before this crisis for not working and for it being expensive to send refugees back to the first member state they entered. In the past few years the European Court has ruled against refugees being sent back to Greece if Greece does not have the means or facilities to deal with them.
So in this current situation several EU countries view a mandatory quota system as being the more civilised option. Have you even been watching the news?
Who the feck is mayor of Bristol and how much power does he wield? It's up to the government in power to decide whether to accept refugees and how many. They will then decide with consultation with various local councils on how refugees can be dispersed.
Read the link in the OP - the Mayor is very vocal - makes the government look bad and lobbying often forces governments to change their policies.
I have made it quite clear that Cameron has made the right decision to accept 20,000 refugees from the camps instead of rewarding those young economic migrants (quite a few who are non-Syrian) who have muscled their way through to various European member states without any respect for EU laws.
And no doubt the 20,000 are very grateful. Doesn't really help the countries like Greece, Italy and Hungary who don't have the resources to process or feed or look after the number of refugees entering their countries, many of whom have made the dangerous journeys in hope of a better future for themselves and their families rather than starve in camps.
Relevance of Somalis to Syrians? You are acting dumb even after I explained to you that Somalis have come to the UK as asylum seekers/migrants just as Syrians have. You claim that Syrians you have met are hard working, pay their taxes etc. I asked you to compare if this applies to Somalis and any other similar community?
Why would I compare Syrians to Somalis unless you are stating that there is a link between the two. Are you stating that? You are still acting dumb and pretending I haven't asked you many times if you are extrapolating the stats for the Somali community to the Syrian refugees and if so, on what basis.
So you insist that the UK should accept these Syrians as you claim they have provided arms to the rebels. But you think it's ok if the Saudis, Russians and Iranians do not accept any refugees. As for Saudis, the operative word is refugee not temporary workers from Syria already working in the Middle East labelled officially as 'Arab brothers and sisters in distress'. And no they haven't accepted any refugees.
Any clearer now?
Where did I say it was ok for Saudis, Russians and Iranians to not accept refugees? I see you are having comprehension problems again. I think all of those countries and the UK should accept refugees rather than leave them in camps that can't feed, house or school them or deal with their medical needs or issue them work permits.
Many of the refugees would prefer to return to their homes in Syria but are unable to do so because of the war. They cannot stay in refugee camps if the camps have run out of funding. And where they have no hope of working to support themselves and their families.
As I said before neither you nor I have any way of verifying claims on the internet about whether the Saudis have taken in Syrian refugees, since Saudi does not use the term refugee in relation to people and their families permitted to work and live in Saudi.
-
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt have all undergone change with the “Arab Spring” but as this event has moved east it has hit a brick wall.
Is it something more than the west selling arms and wanting cheap oil?
-
Dublin provisions have been in operation since 1997 despite objections by 1 or 2 member states and I believe over 25 member states have signed on to the regulation. Germany might have suspended the regulation for Syrian migrants but this was a unilateral decision without consultation with the EU commission or other member states. Mutti merkel will pay a very heavy price for taking this step. But I am glad you have come to your senses and have accepted that third country nationals cannot decide which member state they can claim asylum in. The Hungarian authorities were absolutely right that everyone had to be documented and fingerprinted before they could move further into Europe. They were just following EU regulations. German authorities are the only member state to suspend Dublin provisions and only for Syrian nationals. No other member state has followed suit. If a Syrian national has been fingerprinted for asylum in Austria and then travels to the UK and claims asylum again, he will be removed back to Austria.
You are still acting dumb over Syrian/Somali comparison. You claimed that asylum seekers/migrants would be an asset to a country and be productive and economy would benefit. I asked if this was the case for all asylum seekers/economic migrants. Evasion noted.
And we agree that Syrian nationals should not just be accepted by the west but Saudis, Iranians, gulf states and Russians should all accept those people fleeing civil war. And why just Syrians? Surely Iraqis, afghans, Yemenis, Eritreans, Somalis , Pakistanis and Sudanese are all fleeing civil wars, insurgency despotic regimes so should all be accepted.
-
Dublin provisions have been in operation since 1997 despite objections by 1 or 2 member states and I believe over 25 member states have signed on to the regulation. Germany might have suspended the regulation for Syrian migrants but this was a unilateral decision without consultation with the EU commission or other member states. Mutti merkel will pay a very heavy price for taking this step. But I am glad you have come to your senses and have accepted that third country nationals cannot decide which member state they can claim asylum in. The Hungarian authorities were absolutely right that everyone had to be documented and fingerprinted before they could move further into Europe. They were just following EU regulations. German authorities are the only member state to suspend Dublin provisions and only for Syrian nationals. No other member state has followed suit. If a Syrian national has been fingerprinted for asylum in Austria and then travels to the UK and claims asylum again, he will be removed back to Austria.
You do know that a majority of the EU members pushed through imposing mandatory quotas of refugees on member states rather than sticking to Dublin? I think it makes sense for refugees to choose to go to countries that can better accommodate them rather than all stay in Greece or Italy, who quite clearly can't cope with the numbers. It was good that Germany, after discussions with the French government, decided to ease the burden on Greece and Italy by stating they would not deport Syrian refugees. Britain has refused to participate in the mandatory quota because they have a legal opt out. I gather that Ireland and Denmark also had a legal opt out but chose not to exercise it.
You are still acting dumb over Syrian/Somali comparison. You claimed that asylum seekers/migrants would be an asset to a country and be productive and economy would benefit. I asked if this was the case for all asylum seekers/economic migrants. Evasion noted.
You are still being dumb - in your case it's not an act - about why a post I made on a thread about taking in Syrian migrants/ refugees, where I supported taking in Syrian refugees and specifically talked about Syrians that I had met has any relevance to Somali refugees. If the Somali refugees had problems you have still failed to explain why that is relevant to the issue of supporting Britain taking in Syrian refugees. Evasion noted.
And we agree that Syrian nationals should not just be accepted by the west but Saudis, Iranians, gulf states and Russians should all accept those people fleeing civil war. And why just Syrians? Surely Iraqis, afghans, Yemenis, Eritreans, Somalis , Pakistanis and Sudanese are all fleeing civil wars, insurgency despotic regimes so should all be accepted.
On this thread I am discussing the issue of taking in Syrian refugees because of the humanitarian need due to the war in Syria between pro and anti-Assad forces and because of the unfair burden on Greece and Italy. The existence of refugees from other countries does not change my opinion on the Syrian refugees. Why would it?
-
East European countries have refused to accept mandatory quotas imposed by EU commission. These quotas are to accept 66,000 migrants in Greece and Italy. But its idiotic policy which cannot be policed when member states have signed on to Schengen Agreement. The UK has refused to accept mandatory quotas. Dublin Regulation is still in force and apart from German authorities exempting Syrian nationals and the Greeks not having the resources to accept any asylum seekers, all the other EU member states are all signatories and are implementing the regulation.
Syrian and Somali - you are not just Dumb but acting dumber by the minute. Your assertion was asylum seekers/migrants would contribute to a country's economy. I asked you a very simple question however you have proved you are incapable of answering and instead you have just become befuddled and have tried to evade the question.
And of course if you think Syrians should be accepted in the UK/ Europe as asylum seekers why not other nationals like Afghans, Sudanese, Somalis, Iraqis, Eritreans, Pakistanis etc as they are also fleeing from civil wars, despotic regimes? And how many asylum seekers should the UK accept from these countries?
-
The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.
4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.
The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.
My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".
You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.
-
We are going round in circles so I will bow out of this exchange by emphasising that the UK and Europe cannot accept all the refugees from conflicts around the world. We do not have the resources to accept many more asylum seekers/migrants in the UK as our infrastructure is close to breaking point. In a recent poll 76% of the population want immigration reduced and 50% believe immigration is the most important issue facing the UK. People can see and read about 5000 or so migrants from Calais trying to get to the UK clandestinely. They could claim asylum in France if they were being persecuted n their countries of origin. There has to be a European wide effort to stem the flow of thousands of migrants entering Europe daily or there will be widespread disorder on the streets of European cities. I do not blame the migrants for trying their luck and unless there is more economic parity between Europeans and Africa and sub saharan regions, there will always be a pull factor for people to risk life and limb to get to Europe. This is where the overseas development aid comes in as it should be targeted to help people with medicines, food, immunisation, education for girls esp. and ensure it doesn't end up in the pockets of corrupt officials.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/22/theresa-may-tough-stance-economic-migrants-europe
-
What's your definition of whataboutery?
Its where someone would respond to anaccusation / point by effectively saying whatabout X, Y or Z and evade responding to the accusation / point.
Want an example, well you didn't finish there you wrote more:-
Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?
This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).
I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.
Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.
-
The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.
4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.
The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.
My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".
You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.
It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.
-
What's your definition of whataboutery?
Its where someone would respond to anaccusation / point by effectively saying whatabout X, Y or Z and evade responding to the accusation / point.
Want an example, well you didn't finish there you wrote more:-
Is it where someone talks about the complex issues and different forces that contribute to a situation in the Middle East rather than just blaming Islam, all Muslims or the Sunni- Shia divide? Something like this I saw on the Syria thread you mean?
This is the problem: the shortsightedness of those who were desperate to see Assad go. What's better, to live in peace under a dictator or live in fear for your life under ISIS or an American puppet democracy? Once again Christians especially are getting it in the neck. Worst of all American Christians by-and-large don't care because Middle-Eastern Christians are mostly the wrong type of Christians, the ancient kind (that's if they consider them Christians at all).
I'm not sure what the solution is but I'm pretty sure people living safety in obscenely rich western countries don't have a solution either. The West's record, even if well intentioned (debatable), on intervening in the Middle East is dire.
Putin is a ruthless politician, he uses nationalism to gain political capital, one of the best ways to fuel nationalism is to have a bogeyman, Islamic State fits the bill.
Ah ok - so asking for your definition of whataboutery, and giving an example of your whataboutery to clarify if that is your definition of whataboutery is whataboutery, according to you. Good to know.
Just checking that your personal definition of "whataboutery" and "evading the point" does not also mean not agreeing to look at issues in the same simplistic way that you do, and not giving the exact response you want in the way you want it.
Because I am more than happy to engage in that type of "whataboutery" every single time I respond on here as I have no interest in coming on here just to agree with you or any other poster if I think your posts are overly simplistic, haven't captured the complexity of issues, and do not make sense.
-
The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.
4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.
The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.
My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".
You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.
It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.
I suspect that the people who are pissed off about their wages being cut are still in a far better position than the refugees or the migrants. Whose wages have been cut in Finland, and who made the decision to cut them?
-
The vote was on 66,000 refugees to be taken from Greece and Italy. The EU have already agreed to share 40,000 and were to redistribute a further 120,000. But 54,000 of those were from Hungary, which wants no part of the new policy.
4 Eastern European states voted against the proposal but it was passed by a majority of EU states and therefore it seems all countries will join in sharing refugees, apart from Britain, which has opted out of the scheme.
The main point is that this is hopefully the start of a new EU approach and policy on refugees.
My reply #100 referred to "the refugees" under discussion being an asset, not "all refugees" and I specifically went on to talk about the Syrians I had got to know in the same sentence as "the refugees".
You just seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
Like I said my discussion is related to this specific question about Syrian refugees during the current crisis in Syria. I support the idea that Britain should take their share of the quota.
It's a scandal that this was decided by majority vote. Most of the "refugees" are in fact economic migrants. Of the 15,000 that have already come to Finland this yeas (already some times more than last year) only about 500 are from Syria. And this at a time when the government wants to cut peoples wages. No wonder people are pissed off.
I suspect that the people who are pissed off about their wages being cut are still in a far better position than the refugees or the migrants. Whose wages have been cut in Finland, and who made the decision to cut them?
The government. They haven't implemented it yet but will at the beginning of next year. That we might be better off is neither here nor there.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34487562
*****************
The German government says there have been almost 500 attacks on homes intended for asylum seekers this year - three times more than in 2014.
German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere called such violence "shameful". Two-thirds of the attacks were carried out by locals who had no previous criminal record, he said.
Germany expects to host at least 800,000 asylum seekers this year.
****************
-
Iraqi Shia scholar based in the U.S.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9oImkFVDDoE
-
Just checking that your personal definition of "whataboutery" and "evading the point" does not also mean not agreeing to look at issues in the same simplistic way that you do, and not giving the exact response you want in the way you want it.
Because I am more than happy to engage in that type of "whataboutery" every single time I respond on here as I have no interest in coming on here just to agree with you or any other poster if I think your posts are overly simplistic, haven't captured the complexity of issues, and do not make sense.
Don't worry about agreeing with me or not I rarely read yours posts anyway. :)
-
That's right - you post opinions about my posts despite rarely reading them. That you would admit to that really doesn't surprise me. :)