BlueSi13 Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 No idea, what a mess. Countries should always take people fleeing conflicts but if we do take all these in you just encourage more to come and play into the hands of the people trafickers who are among the mosr evil people on the planet. The other problem is Europe simply can't continue to asorb people at the rate it is doing, we already have huge social unrest in many countries and horrific employment rates in the South. Islam is also an elephant in the room here, with what has happened in Europe over the last decade or two countries simply won't want the problems that come with large numbers of Islamic migration. It's certainly starting to rear it's head. Slovakia has tackled the question head-on however: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33986738
RedSoxUK Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 I'll split this up in to two posts, the war and then the migrants. It's sad these people have to leave their homes in Syria / Libya / Iraq, wherever they're unsafe in war-torn countries; and i feel bad for them, especially after NATO ripped apart Libya and overthrew Gadaffi, but be thankful Putin stepped in before Assad could be ousted in Syria by another NATO demolishing, because it would be a hell of a lot worse for the Syrians. Unfortunatly the only answer to this is to pick a side and fight. On one side you have Putin's Russia and Shia Muslims (Syria is dominatly Sunni and opposed to Assad) with the Assad regime, and on the other side you have Syrian Rebels who are Sunni backed by the US, British, and French etc; and ISIL (ISIS) who are also Sunni - who are also fighting the Syrian Rebels against Assad., so you have a three-way battle all in Syria over control and governmental power; this is why so many are leaving because the war is everywhere due to different occupations by different miliatary forces: Assad's regime, Syrian Rebels, ISIS, and the Kurds. Do you back the Sunni rebels against the Assad regime? or the Assad regime in it's attempt to restore state-wide stability with the Shia's and Russian arms? The problem in Syria isn't just ISIS, that's not why millions are fleeing; it's the civil war between the rebels and the Assad government. We either have to talk with Putin and his puppet Assad in handing his control of Syria over to a democratic government, but risk Syria collapsing even more after what happened similairly to Libya. Or we back the Assad government and attempt to restore peace throughout Syria and fight the risk facing Western Civilisation together, ISIS. To answer it, we're backing the Sunni Syrian Rebels in an attempt to overthrow the Assad regime' after all, this is what most Syrian's actually want. What they don't want is US military involvement on the ground and missile strikes in Syria; which is why there was no involvement two years ago.
bovril Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Agreed, disappointing to see the BBC be so biased with regard to this story. I wouldn't say it was bias, just 'good copy'.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 As sad as it is seeing the picture of that baby I think we need to get our own house in order before dealing with others too.
Strokes Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 I'm not sure what life we can offer them really, I'm mean we treat our poor so awful in this country, they are better off where they are.
RedSoxUK Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 We need to help Lebanon deal with the 1/2+ million Syrian refugees in the camps - almost 25% of Lebanon's population has just moved in expecting to be cared for in part by Lebanon and the UN; this should be a priority, secure and expand the camps in Lebanon and Turkey; funded by charitable organisations and foreign aid by the West - not a burden on Turkey and Lebanon. Unfortuantely these are the closest countries and that's where the refugee camps should be. These camps are where all Syrian refugees should be going to - and the camps need to be places of living, schools, libraries, health statsions, policed by the UN - places where Syrian refugees can live. Zero Syrians should be making a deathly journey to Greece, and zero Syrians should be allowed to mass migrate through Europe; this is not the answer. The answer is to stabilise Syria; enforce the quality of life there, combat ISIS out of Syria, and to eventually move the refugees from the camps in Lebanon and Turkey back to Syria. We need to make sure they're safe at the lowest cost to Europe and Syrian life. - The mass migrant crisis we face in Europe, Germany and Sweden specifically; is an economic migrant problem, not a refugee problem. We as a continent need to take a tiny share of the burden each, and this share needs to be the refugees that can't help re-build Syria, and are dangered; but can potentially integrate in to European society - women and children mostly. What The Guardian / Independant are doing with their #RefugeesWelcome is possibly the worst level of leftist idiocy i've ever seen. Those calling out for us to open our doors to a high amount of refugees are literally without them realising it, crippling the United Kingdom. Germany taking in 800,000 is already setting a disastorous precedent for Germany and their future generations. If you care at all about the future of your children across Europe, then you'll take a good look at Sweden now compared to 20 years ago, and realise why mass migration like this is a very bad idea. It isn't just a short-term fix for a number of lives, it's a lifetime burden on a countries' economic and cultural identity. For us to let in say the amount of 'refugees' as Germany, would be the worst thing we could possibly do for the short-term, and long-term effects of the United Kingdom.
Buzzell Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Are other European countries allowing refugees in or is it just the UK?
Wymsey Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Calais situation might become worse again, inevitable.
RedSoxUK Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Are other European countries allowing refugees in or is it just the UK? Sweden and Germany are where most want to go; that;s because Sweden and Germany are the most generious when giving away free housing and money to refugees and immigrants. The share of refugees is being spread across pretty much every country in Europe. Some plenty, most few.
bovril Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 If you settle some of the refugees in various EU countries surely there is nothing to stop them then moving to another country they'd prefer to live in.
Dr The Singh Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 I remember 1980's when Indian government did its genocidal attacks on the Sikhs, leading to people fleeing to Britain as asylum seekers. But these Sikhs could have easily went to CHINA, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc etc. For refuge At this time, today, there are many camps these refugees can go to in neighbouring countries to syria. Those camps are empty, people are leaving those camps, risking thee lives, leaving refuge to go and find a better life, which isn't being a refugee So, the desperation isn't necessary fear for there lives. But just like those Sikhs, the desperation is more to do with economic value gained to move to more prosperous nations to get a better life. So technically it's not seeking refuge, otherwise we would see these people be happy in Hungary or Turkey, where there are many provisions setup to give refuge. The media, and people are being sucked in this pointless moral debate. Britain needs to enforce refuge for these people where there is least risk, eg Turkey. Provide more services and better quality life at those places, which will stop people risking there lives crossing the sea's. It is human nature to wanting to have a better lives but that is not seeking refuge
BlueSi13 Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 If you settle some of the refugees in various EU countries surely there is nothing to stop them then moving to another country they'd prefer to live in. Precisely, once they get EU papers you'll be seeing plenty rock up in the UK, France etc. Besides, Germany plans on forcing other European nations to accept a quota of migrants to share the burden anyway (the whole 800,000 thing is just a political bluff)....isn't this whole EU idea wonderful? I also fear that many a politician still believes that settling those that have made it to Europe will stop the problem rather than realising with each concession, the flow of people gets larger and larger and larger.
RedSoxUK Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 I remember 1980's when Indian government did its genocidal attacks on the Sikhs, leading to people fleeing to Britain as asylum seekers. But these Sikhs could have easily went to CHINA, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc etc. For refuge At this time, today, there are many camps these refugees can go to in neighbouring countries to syria. Those camps are empty, people are leaving those camps, risking thee lives, leaving refuge to go and find a better life, which isn't being a refugee So, the desperation isn't necessary fear for there lives. But just like those Sikhs, the desperation is more to do with economic value gained to move to more prosperous nations to get a better life. So technically it's not seeking refuge, otherwise we would see these people be happy in Hungary or Turkey, where there are many provisions setup to give refuge. The media, and people are being sucked in this pointless moral debate. Britain needs to enforce refuge for these people where there is least risk, eg Turkey. Provide more services and better quality life at those places, which will stop people risking there lives crossing the sea's. It is human nature to wanting to have a better lives but that is not seeking refuge I remember 1980's when Indian government did its genocidal attacks on the Sikhs, leading to people fleeing to Britain as asylum seekers. But these Sikhs could have easily went to CHINA, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc etc. For refuge At this time, today, there are many camps these refugees can go to in neighbouring countries to syria. Those camps are empty, people are leaving those camps, risking thee lives, leaving refuge to go and find a better life, which isn't being a refugee So, the desperation isn't necessary fear for there lives. But just like those Sikhs, the desperation is more to do with economic value gained to move to more prosperous nations to get a better life. So technically it's not seeking refuge, otherwise we would see these people be happy in Hungary or Turkey, where there are many provisions setup to give refuge. The media, and people are being sucked in this pointless moral debate. Britain needs to enforce refuge for these people where there is least risk, eg Turkey. Provide more services and better quality life at those places, which will stop people risking there lives crossing the sea's. It is human nature to wanting to have a better lives but that is not seeking refuge Spot on.
Dr The Singh Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Precisely, once they get EU papers you'll be seeing plenty rock up in the UK, France etc. Besides, Germany plans on forcing other European nations to accept a quota of migrants to share the burden anyway (the whole 800,000 thing is just a political bluff)....isn't this whole EU idea wonderful? I also fear that many a politician still believes that settling those that have made it to Europe will stop the problem rather than realising with each concession, the flow of people gets larger and larger and larger. They will end up at calais
Jon the Hat Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Interesting article. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html
RedSoxUK Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Interesting article. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html As true as it gets frankly.
Strokes Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 Interesting article. http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.htmlWhat a nasty tory, how dare he.
enmac Posted 3 September 2015 Posted 3 September 2015 I didn't intend to suggest it's easy. It wasn't easy for Britain to stand up to the Nazis in WW2, It wasn't easy for people in Balkan countries to stand up to the evil there. It isn't easy for many people in Africa to stand up to the attackers there but this is what so many people do. They fight for their own country, to have it how they wish. Many of these people and their families are dying as they run away, the picture of that young kid on the Turkish beach today was horrible. It's being used by many to suggest England should take in 100's of 1000's of refugees. Perhaps that's right but would it have been any worse for that child's parents to fight for what they wanted in Syria? Chronic ignorance, I suggest. Many in Kobane ( where those poor kids on the beach were from)are fighting: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nKINqptJq3A The title of this thread is so wrong. REFUGEES not migrants! #RefugeesWelcome
Jon the Hat Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 What a nasty tory, how dare he. To be fair, an awful lot of Australians are really pissed off that kids are being detained offshore and waiting years for their asylum claims to be processed. True about the boats though, they had hundreds drowning - people were reportedly sinking boats (not sure if that was confirmed) - to ensure they got picked up by the Navy.
Babylon Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 Did anybody see the disgusting sensationalising (spell) earlier in Hungary when the police tried to move the reporters/cameras? Phrases such as "Who knows what is going to happen here once the cameras stop filming" How about you're just in the way of the police trying to do their job so move out of the way. Don't get me started, I was watching the 24 hour news channel and I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing half the time. Comments like "the refugees are being numbered like the jews were numbered in WWII", then of course the comments about the train. Seemingly trying to make out that when they left the train would shuttle off to a concentration camp and gas them all. Then they were speaking to some random woman in Iceland who wanted them to home 10,000 refugees. That asked her if she was worried about the burden it could place on services such as schools, hospitals etc. Or at least thought it was a legitimate concern. Her response was literally along the lines of anyone holding those views is racist. WHAT! They didn't even challenge the ridiculous comment. Hour upon hour of talk about how much more we should do, then a 10 second report afterwards about how Britain actually supplies Syrian refugees with more foreign aid than any other country. Setting up camps, with tents, beds, clothing, food, water etc to keep them safe and well..... Oh, so we're not total bastards then.
EastAnglianFox Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 Don't get me started, I was watching the 24 hour news channel and I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing half the time. Comments like "the refugees are being numbered like the jews were numbered in WWII", then of course the comments about the train. Seemingly trying to make out that when they left the train would shuttle off to a concentration camp and gas them all. Then they were speaking to some random woman in Iceland who wanted them to home 10,000 refugees. That asked her if she was worried about the burden it could place on services such as schools, hospitals etc. Or at least thought it was a legitimate concern. Her response was literally along the lines of anyone holding those views is racist. WHAT! They didn't even challenge the ridiculous comment. Hour upon hour of talk about how much more we should do, then a 10 second report afterwards about how Britain actually supplies Syrian refugees with more foreign aid than any other country. Setting up camps, with tents, beds, clothing, food, water etc to keep them safe and well..... Oh, so we're not total bastards then. Could not agree more, infuriating to the point that I'm not going to watch the news for some considerable time now. It is not that I am heartless to the current events, but the sheer amount of people that are taken in by this type of reporting is actually baffling.
Buce Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 Could not agree more, infuriating to the point that I'm not going to watch the news for some considerable time now. . That's told 'em! I can hear the distant sound of corporate heads rolling, as we speak..
Lesteban Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 We are the second largest donor in the world to help provide shelter in the countries surrounding Syria, but that doesn't mean it's working. Lebanon is the destination for many, it's over 100 times smaller than the EU and takes over 50 times more refugees than every EU country combined. It doesn't have the social infrastructure to cope, it's population has rocketed by over 20% in a matter of months. European countries do have the infrastructure to cope, but the razor wire border the EU put up along the Turkey/Bulgaria border forces many into the hands of people smugglers. Those who can reach the Turkish border have to take a much more dangerous voyage from the Syrian coast. Those photos came from a journey from Bodrum to Kos, which is only around 10-15 miles, quite safe unless you're in an overloaded boat. We are about to announce taking some refugees from camps around Syria to ease the burden on those countries, which makes good sense IMO. I'd hope the EU will agree to take down their razor wire barrier and a agree a deal to distribute refugees to countries who volunteer to take them, it would be quite a few now I'd imagine. A safe passage will mean it would be stupid for people to turn to traffickers at $1000s per trip. We have taken 187 so far on the relocation scheme, which is pretty shameful compared to 3,000 just at Munich station last weekend, but the German reaction has been fantastic, especially from their football clubs. But it's not like we have done nothing, we have paid £800m (up until Feb, it's higher now) it's just not done that much to stop the crisis unfortunately. It seems cheaper and faster to agree to move them safely to places with good infrastructure, then arrange for them to return home, if they wish, after the fighting is over. The people we see turning up are relatively wealthy, by all accounts it's costs $1000s per person to be trafficked into Europe, so it makes sense that we should go first to help the poor and most vulnerable who are stuck in areas close to ISIS. As for why someone from Kobane would want to get out of the area, it's fairly easy to understand, the Turkish border is literally in the back gardens of those in the north of the town. When it came under siege from ISIS, Turkey refused to help them while they were being attacked in their homes. The Turkish hate the Kurds, Hence why they were to reluctant to agree to help fight ISIS in the first place, they're in political turmoil and this week found that local government officials were secretly trafficking arms to ISIS. The same ones which were being used to kill these peoples families. If I was running for my life from those psychopaths I would not stop there, absolutely no question.
Dr The Singh Posted 4 September 2015 Posted 4 September 2015 No lie, my dad had 3 phones calls from friends and family members as king for money so they can get there kids, illegally in Budapest a train ticket to Germany. One actually asked if we could go down and drive his boy to Germany. Apparently, the biggest trafficing route in the world is Budapest, in punjab its £10k for that journey. Now that is just Punjab, what about all the other nations with economic migrants.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.