j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 If five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all why should we? They are arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism and what will it do to us? To be fair, those countries are doing more than is commonly stated. But why would Syrians want to go and live in any of the Gulf states? Syria was the most liberal of the lot, Saudi, Iran, Dubai, Jordan, Qatar etc all inflict draconian religious/cultural laws on their citizens. Only today it has been announced that a Palestinian immigrant in Saudi is being executed for publishing work construed as Atheist. It is easy to see why they want to come to Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cered Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 To be fair, those countries are doing more than is commonly stated. But why would Syrians want to go and live in any of the Gulf states? Syria was the most liberal of the lot, Saudi, Iran, Dubai, Jordan, Qatar etc all inflict draconian religious/cultural laws on their citizens. It is easy to see why they want to come to Europe. That and Saudi are currently using Syrians as cheap labour. iirc a fair few have been killed because of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 No surprise there Those videos you mention couldn't possibly be being used as propaganda, just like the shocking images of drowned Syrian boy were? No, not considering the sources they come from. They would be propaganda if used in mainstream media, which these are not. These are coming from people on the ground, trying to get the story out, not looking to sell some papers. I couldn't agree more with what the US is doing, you need to look after number one in this situation and if that involves closing your boarders down to protect yourself then so be it. Since when did refugees fleeing a Civil war become our problem? If that is not acting in our best interests what is? As I have said previously, it's not a civil war considering Western involvement and contribution to the situation. If five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all why should we? They are arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism and what will it do to us? They have taken Syrian refugees in. Where are you getting information that they haven't? It is difficult if not impossible to perform background checks on the migrants, are you trying to tell me there are no ISIS fighters amongst them? No Rapists? No Murders? No Paedophile's? You only need to look what has been happening in the UK since the boarders were opened to all and sundry in Europe. ISIS hide amongst us and they kill indiscriminately, anyone; Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Young, Old, the healthy and the infirm. They set people on fire; they behead others and post the imagery on the Internet. They rape en masse including children and they commit mass murder that rivals Hitler’s Einsatzgruppen. They have started a war and the war is ugly. It is grotesque and it is barbaric. The longer it continues the longer innocent people will continue to suffer and die. There is no nice way to do this but there never has been and if the Western world cannot stomach the fight and its’ consequences we have already lost. The failure for decades has been the failure to accept that you can't fight wars humanely. Letting these things drag on only increases the horror and no amount of hand wringing will ever stop it. Do you want the fight to be in our towns and cities where more innocent people can be indiscriminately slaughtered or on the battlefield? Which is it to be? Oh but of course – it’s the West’s entire fault! So in summary you are seriously saying we should "go in" and just flatten the whole place irrespective of civilian loss? You do realise that's exactly what isis want? You do realise that's what is bolstering their recruitment drive? You do realise that will hand the region to them on a plate? It's far, far more complex than you seem to think. "Oh just bomb them all, nuke the area" type comments seem to be doing the rounds at the moment with little understanding of A) the consequences or B) the contributing factors to what's currently happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 I have a Surveyor friend whos currently in Dubai every week. Apparently behind the scenes it is rife there too, despite the glamorous facade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 No, not considering the sources they come from. They would be propaganda if used in mainstream media, which these are not. These are coming from people on the ground, trying to get the story out, not looking to sell some papers. As I have said previously, it's not a civil war considering Western involvement and contribution to the situation. They have taken Syrian refugees in. Where are you getting information that they haven't? So in summary you are seriously saying we should "go in" and just flatten the whole place irrespective of civilian loss? You do realise that's exactly what isis want? You do realise that's what is bolstering their recruitment drive? You do realise that will hand the region to them on a plate? It's far, far more complex than you seem to think. "Oh just bomb them all, nuke the area" type comments seem to be doing the rounds at the moment with little understanding of A) the consequences or B) the contributing factors to what's currently happening. There is a lot of posts on this thread stating that intervention will result in a huge loss of lives, but something needs to be done. Yet I am yet to see a credible alternative being suggested? It may appear prudent to wait things out, but how many people are being killed by IS every day? Mass graves have already been discovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 There is a lot of posts on this thread stating that intervention will result in a huge loss of lives, but something needs to be done. Yet I am yet to see a credible alternative being suggested? It may appear prudent to wait things out, but how many people are being killed by IS every day? Mass graves have already been discovered. I have a blog post saved on my laptop by someone who knows a lot more than any of us about a solution. Its a big read but I'll post the link later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 Well in my mind, there has to be a military response. It is extremely doubtful that IS are going to sit at the negotiating table, and even if they would it would just be giving them legitimacy as a true state. But I also think that, while we should be involved in an intervention, it should purely be in a support role, and the same goes for France and USA. Russia and China would be ideal, and China has international obligations and responsibilities to start living up to as one of the major economies. We can count on the Arab states to do sweet FA as usual. Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of innocent people suffer whatever happens. I won't use the utterly inhumane term 'collateral', but it is moderate Syrians who have the most to lose who need to be the front of this fight against evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I'm not disagreeing about the need for it to be a military solution. The sooner isis are wiped off the earth the better. But bombing the region off the map isn't going to work. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 I agree. Bombing needs to be part of an overall strategy that involves ground troops. Bombing alone, especially the token force we currently have in Iraq, will do little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Bullitt Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 So in summary you are seriously saying we should "go in" and just flatten the whole place irrespective of civilian loss? You do realise that's exactly what isis want? You do realise that's what is bolstering their recruitment drive? You do realise that will hand the region to them on a plate? It's far, far more complex than you seem to think. "Oh just bomb them all, nuke the area" type comments seem to be doing the rounds at the moment with little understanding of A) the consequences or B) the contributing factors to what's currently happening. I'm not saying nuke the area but something needs to be done. Bombing is only part of it but it's the part the saves the lives of our service men and women who are killed unnecessarily trying to protect the freedom of others yet again. Is it our fault ISIS hide amongst civilian populations? Again what should we do? Send in ground troops? Look at how well that has worked in the past! You and the other members that are apposed to bombing have yet to offer up any other viable alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cered Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 UK can't send in ground troops... We don't have an army anymore Smart thing to do would be to work with Putin to remove Asad safely, then work with the Kurds and Syrians to establish a government controlled by the people. Less Politics, more remove kebab in terms of Daesh. France are hammering them right now (And no civvies killed, ignore what Facebook says). And it does seem like Putin wants Asad out now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I'm not saying nuke the area but something needs to be done. Bombing is only part of it but it's the part the saves the lives of our service men and women who are killed unnecessarily trying to protect the freedom of others yet again. Is it our fault ISIS hide amongst civilian populations? Again what should we do? Send in ground troops? Look at how well that has worked in the past! You and the other members that are apposed to bombing have yet to offer up any other viable alternative. There are some more complex alternatives to either sending wave after wave of bombing runs or thousands of ground troops for a liberation. I did say I would post some bits up later on. You haven't yet suggested a viable alternative either though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 He doesn't really need to suggest an alternative, because he is in favour of strikes. What he's getting at is people who say they're against strikes, says there are better ways, and then don't state them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 He doesn't really need to suggest an alternative, because he is in favour of strikes. What he's getting at is people who say they're against strikes, says there are better ways, and then don't state them. The key word in my post was viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 20, 2015 Author Share Posted November 20, 2015 And every minute we do nothing, innocent Syrians die at tye hands of IS, and Syria's cultural heritage is destroyed. As I've already said, I don't agree with strikes alone. But that is still more "viable" than twiddling our thumbs at the sidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Bullitt Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 There are some more complex alternatives to either sending wave after wave of bombing runs or thousands of ground troops for a liberation. I did say I would post some bits up later on. You haven't yet suggested a viable alternative either though? I didn't say send in wave after wave of bombing runs or send in thousands of ground troops did I? Again, still awaiting a reply from the naysayers as to what action should be taken as non of you have offered up any other solution. Just so I understand this correctly, don't actually have an alternative answer of your own. Instead you are going to link to someone's blog who has taken the time to research into an alternative and jump on their bandwagon as you like their ideas or their ideas are similar to yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I didn't say send in wave after wave of bombing runs or send in thousands of ground troops did I? Again, still awaiting a reply from the naysayers as to what action should be taken as non of you have offered up any other solution. Just so I understand this correctly, don't actually have an alternative answer of your own. Instead you are going to link to someone's blog who has taken the time to research into an alternative and jump on their bandwagon as you like their ideas or their ideas are similar to yours? No, you're not understanding it correctly Frank. I have some of my own research on my laptop as well as some documents saved from elsewhere. I'm trying to get into 'open source research' as an unpaid secondary career. Any imbecile can copy and paste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Bullitt Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 No, you're not understanding it correctly Frank. I have some of my own research on my laptop as well as some documents saved from elsewhere. I'm trying to get into 'open source research' as an unpaid secondary career. Any imbecile can copy and paste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 And every minute we do nothing, innocent Syrians die at tye hands of IS, and Syria's cultural heritage is destroyed. As I've already said, I don't agree with strikes alone. But that is still more "viable" than twiddling our thumbs at the sidelines. To me it seems like we are confused or are a bunch of liars. We talk about saving the Syrians and yet we want to close our borders to the refugees..... We blame muslims for the atrocities of IS and yet we want to save the poor Syrians, good bunch of which are muslims. We are quick to hold Islam responsible for terrorism and yet mourn for the lives of innocent muslim blood being spilt in Syria. We want to help the Syrian people by bombing IS - fully recognising the fact that there will be untold amount of "collateral damage" - look at what the french did earlier in the week - IMO equal if not more reprehensible than the killings in paris. Why Syria, what about the destruction IS is causing in parts of Africa? I judge us by the results of our military intervention and illegal invasions (alongside big brother) for the past 25 years - and the record is a bloody failure - in every nature of the phrase - WE are key in creating this mess and turning the world into a much more dangerous place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 To be fair, those countries are doing more than is commonly stated. Other than holding a military arms and air show in Dubai a few weeks back where billions of dollars worth of deals were done - what have they actually done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted November 21, 2015 Author Share Posted November 21, 2015 To me it seems like we are confused or are a bunch of liars. We talk about saving the Syrians and yet we want to close our borders to the refugees..... We blame muslims for the atrocities of IS and yet we want to save the poor Syrians, good bunch of which are muslims. We are quick to hold Islam responsible for terrorism and yet mourn for the lives of innocent muslim blood being spilt in Syria. We want to help the Syrian people by bombing IS - fully recognising the fact that there will be untold amount of "collateral damage" - look at what the french did earlier in the week - IMO equal if not more reprehensible than the killings in paris. Why Syria, what about the destruction IS is causing in parts of Africa? I judge us by the results of our military intervention and illegal invasions (alongside big brother) for the past 25 years - and the record is a bloody failure - in every nature of the phrase I have no issue with us taking in *genuine* refugees. I don't believe in taking in any of this mass exodus across Europe though, the vast majority of who aren't even Syrian. To be fair to David Cameron, his response to this was perfect. At the same time, I don't believe the rules for refugees are right. I think refugees should have to return to their country of origin once it becomes safe again. Not just for our sake, but also because the skills, experience and knowledge of their best and brightest will be crucial in rebuilding their nation. There is obviously a strong link between what these guys are doing and Islam. Like any rational person, I obviously acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are entirely peaceful, and abhor ISIS as much if not more than everyone else. But they are uniquely recruiting impressionable Muslims, fundraising in our Muslim communities, forcing people to convert to Islam and killing those that won't etc. There is something in Islam that these monsters are exploiting. I don't think religion should play a part in the selection process for refugees, just that ll refugees of all creeds, colours and religions are thoroughly vetted before stepping on UK soil. If it were 'Christian State' exporting terrorism around the world, it would receive the same scrutiny. Certainly the wake of these child abuse scandals has deeply damaged the Catholic Church in the developed world. I would take any casualty figures with a pinch of salt. As always happens in war, all sides alter the actual fatality figures to suit their own agenda, even the so called 'neutral parties'. But yes, any innocents caught up in it is tragic, but do you think it is any better for them living under ISIS? Even if they wanted to encourage Western Airstrikes, do you think they could without being butchered by IS? Whatever happens, even if we do nothing, a lot of innocent Syrians are going to die. Nothing will change that now. Does IS operate in Africa? I thought their only African actions were excursions into the Sanai? And that Boko Haram and Al Quaida were operating in Africa? What would you do? Other than holding a military arms and air show in Dubai a few weeks back where billions of dollars worth of deals were done - what have they actually done? Apparently Dubai has donated considerable sums to the refugee camps etc, and Saudi has apparently taken in 2.5 million refugees (though there is very little way to substantiate that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I have no issue with us taking in *genuine* refugees. I don't believe in taking in any of this mass exodus across Europe though, the vast majority of who aren't even Syrian. Vast majority? Source for your figures? Are those across the region affected by Isis less or more worthy of refuge than Syrians, or equally? There is obviously a strong link between what these guys are doing and Islam. Like any rational person, I obviously acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are entirely peaceful, and abhor ISIS as much if not more than everyone else. But they are uniquely recruiting impressionable Muslims, fundraising in our Muslim communities, forcing people to convert to Islam and killing those that won't etc. There is something in Islam that these monsters are exploiting. I don't think religion should play a part in the selection process for refugees, just that ll refugees of all creeds, colours and religions are thoroughly vetted before stepping on UK soil. Have you missed that they are killing more Muslims than non Muslims, and that the majority of what they do goes against Islam? If religion plays no part in the selection process, are you suggesting there would be no preference to taking Christian refugees over Muslims? Assume you've missed the stories about America recently then? Certainly the wake of these child abuse scandals has deeply damaged the Catholic Church in the developed world. That's an entirely different, unrelated & incomparable subject. I would take any casualty figures with a pinch of salt. As always happens in war, all sides alter the actual fatality figures to suit their own agenda, even the so called 'neutral parties'. But yes, any innocents caught up in it is tragic, but do you think it is any better for them living under ISIS? Even if they wanted to encourage Western Airstrikes, do you think they could without being butchered by IS? It's widely accepted by various organisations that the civilian casualty count will be much higher than it is so far said to be. So yes absolutely take it with a large pinch of salt. Does IS operate in Africa? I thought their only African actions were excursions into the Sanai? And that Boko Haram and Al Quaida were operating in Africa? Boko Harem are now classed (by both themselves & isis) that they are one and the same. Already been pointed out in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Other than holding a military arms and air show in Dubai a few weeks back where billions of dollars worth of deals were done - what have they actually done? Same as we did over here recently also. Impeccable taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo11 Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 I judge us by the results of our military intervention and illegal invasions (alongside big brother) for the past 25 years - and the record is a bloody failure - in every nature of the phrase - WE are key in creating this mess and turning the world into a much more dangerous place. Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Bullitt Posted November 21, 2015 Share Posted November 21, 2015 Apparently Dubai has donated considerable sums to the refugee camps etc, and Saudi has apparently taken in 2.5 million refugees (though there is very little way to substantiate that) Obviously things are constantly changing and if there are more up to date figures please post them up From what I can remember the total donations from the Gulf States are believe to be around $530 million compared to $4.5 billion from the US and £1 billion from the UK. Sherif Elsayed Ali the Deputy Director of Global Issues at Amnesty International (human & refugee/migrants' rights) has said of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain), not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. Turkey 2,181,293 Syrian refugees Lebanon 1,075,637 Syrian refugees Jordan 633,644 Syrian refugees Iraq 244,765 Syrian refugees Egypt 127,681 Syrian refugees North Africa 26,772 Syrian refugees August 2015 European states have received 681,713 asylum applications from Syrian refugees. Serbia & Kosovo 205,578 applications. Germany 153,655 applications. Sweden 93,268 applications. Hungary 71,845 applications. Austria 27,379 applications. UK 7,735 applications. The above info is according to the UNHCR. (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.