Refugee Crisis

[Shryke]

I wasn't the one suggesting military intervention as a solution to the refugee crisis anyway. It all began with (judging by his tone ) a grand master in military strategies telling us how ISIS is losing and The West is winning all thanks to the bombing strategies.

 

No, you were the one saying the bombing was making this a long war. Which is utterly and completely silly because this was gonna be a long conflict no matter what the US did, which is what I was pointing out.

 

And the bombing campaign is certainly curtailing ISIS's power. It's just that it only goes so far.

[Darzin]

People seem to be conflating the concepts of "providing safe haven for refugees of war" with "taking care of immigrants from a certain ethnicity".

 

Allow me to elaborate. Most of the refugees are [allegedly] from Syria. Can any of you tell apart a Syrian native citizen, who is a refugee of war, from a ethnic Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, Iraqi, Egyptian, Libyan, Algerian or Moroccan emigrant, if both of are without documents and claim to be from Syria? By the time they have reached EU borders you truly can't, and this is not even including the opportunists from Kosovo, Albania and other regions, that look nothing like ethnic Syrians (at least most of them).

 

Many of the refugees are definitely from Syria, this is beyond dispute. But a significant number is not. If you accept them all, then you are encouraging more opportunists. If you reject them all, you are being inhumane. There is no feasible way to tell them apart, you'd need devout a huge pool of resources and manpower just for that, which can be instead used to help them.

 

Then comes the second question - why are the refugees who are truly fleeing from war zones going all the way to western Europe and Scandinavia - that's thousands of kilometers beyond the safe borders of southern EU countries, where they initially enter the Union. Why bother travelling that far north, risking injury and death on the way, if you are already in a safe country? As someone, who lives in one of those southern countries I can tell you why - they don't want to stay here. This is not our opinion, it's theirs, I've heard it in interviews from refugees, who've entered the country. They see no opportunity for starting a new life here (can't really blame them), some have outright said that my country is as bad or worse an environment that the one they are fleeing from. They get their EU documents (yes, it's an EU country) and sprint head over heels to our north-western borders.

 

This leaves me with mixed feelings. On the one side we don't get many refugees staying so it doesn't strain our economy. We help them, but they eventually are on their way. At the same time, if people fleeing from war outright refuse to stay here, it makes me wonder whether my country is truly such a shithole (spoiler: it kinda is, but that's offtopic), or are those refugees more opportunistic than they should be? For you see, even genuine war refugees might not want to settle for something, which long term would be worse than their previous life. It is perfectly rational for them, having already undertaken the perilous journey of emigrating, to push the extra mile and go to a place of opportunity, which is what western and northern Europe are. Europeans owe them safe haven, this is indisputable (by my morality code), but do we also owe them the long term opportunity environment that some of the wealthier countries in the EU enjoy? 

 

 

This is what I was getting at. Of course we should help refugees, but the thing is there are millions and millions of people who want to immigrate to the EU and America. regardless of whether there is a conflict or not. People have a right to the safety of their families they don't necessarily have a right to live in northern Europe just because their from a conflict zone. 

[Relic]

Why is that? Bombing ISIS has no downsides.

 

 

The ignorance of this statement makes everything you say after it irrelevant. Setting aside the billions of dollars these airstrikes cost (hi tax dollars!) we have something called collateral damage, the tragic price of which is human (and no doubt animal) life.

 

To YOU this is not a cost of course, not even a moral one, because you're sitting comfy on your nice chair in front of a computer screen, nice and climate controlled and fed and saturated with entertainment and totally not getting bombs dropped on you. You don't give a fuck. But every single person erroneously murdered by an off target explosion rained down from a drone plays straight into ISIL's agenda. 

 

No biggie tho. NOOOO downside. At all. 

[The Iceman of the North]

I'm not sure why the emphasis on ISIS. As far as the refugee crisis goes, you should really look at the government forces in Syria. The majority of civilian casualties in Syria caused by Assad's men.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

 

The ignorance of this statement makes everything you say after it irrelevant. Setting aside the billions of dollars these airstrikes cost (hi tax dollars!) we have something called collateral damage, the tragic price of which is human (and no doubt animal) life.

 

To YOU this is not a cost of course, not even a moral one, because you're sitting comfy on your nice chair in front of a computer screen, nice and climate controlled and fed and saturated with entertainment and totally not getting bombs dropped on you. You don't give a fuck. But every single person erroneously murdered by an off target explosion rained down from a drone plays straight into ISIL's agenda. 

 

No biggie tho. NOOOO downside. At all. 

This is just hysteria.

 

The collateral damage from the coalition bombing campaign against ISIS has been extremely small, easily the least of any campaign of this size that has ever been launched.

 

Also the irony of accusing me of sitting in some chair in front of a computer and and being spoiled, while you complain about the "tax dollars" that these bombs cost. The entire intervention against ISIS has probably cost you as a single tax paying worker the equivalent of a greasy hamburger, a milkshake, and some bacon to wrap around your french fries when you dip them in it. Not more.

 

When you compare these things to the benefits of bombing ISIS like this, which is not having the Levant be conquered by a state that would be dismissed by critics as being so over the top evil as to be unrealistic if it was ever written about in a fantasy or sci-fi book, it is indeed alright to say that this campaign doesn't have any real downsides.

[polishgenius]

 But every single person erroneously murdered by an off target explosion rained down from a drone plays straight into ISIL's agenda. 

 

 

It doesn't even need to kill any civilians to do that. Any campaign against a Muslim area by a Western state needs careful consideration of the benefits because it makes the job of those seeking to radicalise so much easier, no matter what actually happens.

I don't know enough of how the Syrian bombing campaigns have played out to argue the point on them one way or the other but it's certainly not true to say there's no downside.

[Relic]

This is just hysteria.

 

The collateral damage from the coalition bombing campaign against ISIS has been extremely small, easily the least of any campaign of this size that has ever been launched.

 

Also the irony of accusing me of sitting in some chair in front of a computer and and being spoiled, while you complain about the "tax dollars" that these bombs cost. The entire intervention against ISIS has probably cost you as a single tax paying worker the equivalent of a greasy hamburger, a milkshake, and some bacon to wrap around your french fries when you dip them in it. Not more.

 

When you compare these things to the benefits of bombing ISIS like this, which is not having the Levant be conquered by a state that would be dismissed by critics as being so over the top evil as to be unrealistic if it was ever written about in a fantasy or sci-fi book, it is indeed alright to say that this campaign doesn't have any real downsides.

 

You said there was no downside. There is plenty of downside, not in the least of which is loss of civilian life (and while its been "small" due to collateral dmg so far i dare you to say it's a small price to pay if it was your friend or family member killed).

 

As for tax dollars, they could be spent on something that actually matters, like education, science, or healthcare. Since they are being spent on military bombing runs i'll call this waste of money a downside as well.  

[Relic]

 

 

It doesn't even need to kill any civilians to do that. Any campaign against a Muslim area by a Western state needs careful consideration of the benefits because it makes the job of those seeking to radicalise so much easier, no matter what actually happens.

I don't know enough of how the Syrian bombing campaigns have played out to argue the point on them one way or the other but it's certainly not true to say there's no downside.

 

 

And then there's this, as well. 

 

a bit more on airstrikes. U.S. military command states that two civilians have lost their lives since the airstrikes started (and zero at the time of publication of this article) but other strongly disagree.

 

http://theweek.com/articles/551128/just-how-many-civilians-have-died-wests-campaign-against-isis  

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

You said there was no downside. There is plenty of downside, not in the least of which is loss of civilian life (and while its been "small" due to collateral dmg so far i dare you to say it's a small price to pay if it was your friend or family member killed).

 

As for tax dollars, they could be spent on something that actually matters, like education, science, or healthcare. Since they are being spent on military bombing runs i'll call this waste of money a downside as well.  

That is an absurd line of reasoning. For example, as a person I would never consider the loss of a friend or family member small even if it would hypothetically lead to a completely perfect world for everyone else forever, with no other costs. This wouldn't change the fact that in the grand scheme of things, when you move beyond the opinions of a single person out of billions, it would be a loss so extremely small as to be neglible.

 

Of course, preventing stuff like this doesn't "actually matter" and is a "waste of money". http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/isis-a-caliphate-of-torture-and-rape/

What a stand up guy you are.

 

When you look at what those bombings are doing for preventing certain things from happening in the Middle East, any downsides look quite irrelevant in comparison.

[mormont]

I think you may be confusing 'I consider this overall to be worth it because I believe the downside is small and outweighed by the benefits' with 'there is no downside'. These are two totally different things.

 

ETA - also, I have already warned people to lay off the personal commentary. I won't do it again.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian migrant! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syrian-migrants-son-steve-jobs_55e9d5cee4b002d5c075ec83

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

I think you may be confusing 'I consider this overall to be worth it because I believe the downside is small and outweighed by the benefits' with 'there is no downside'. These are two totally different things.

 

ETA - also, I have already warned people to lay off the personal commentary. I won't do it again.

They are not totally different, technically speaking they are the same thing. Good luck finding something positive that someone else can't point out a possible downside with, regardless of how small and petty it is in comparison. According to your reasoning one could never use the sentence "there is no downside" for anything.

 

But arguing semantics like this is completely pointless and tedious, especially in this thread.

[mormont]

'This thing does not exist' is not even remotely the same as 'this thing is not important IMO', and the distinction is not merely a matter of semantics.

 

But: so long as we all understand that your position is the latter, not the former, and that you misspoke, that's fair enough.

[IamMe90]

They are not totally different, technically speaking they are the same thing. Good luck finding something positive that someone else can't point out a possible downside with, regardless of how small and petty it is in comparison. According to your reasoning one could never use the sentence "there is no downside" for anything.

 

First of all, technically they ARE different. I wouldn't point this out, but you said "technically." Having no downside, and having little downside, are two very obviously different things, that exist within the same spectrum, and that are observably and measurably different. Sorry, maybe I just have a pet peeve with people using the word "technically" in an unintentionally ironic manner. 

 

Second, there are plenty of situations that no one would find bad/everyone would find good, that could even conceivably happen. I could give one of my two apples to a homeless man, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. 

 

Third, if you think there is some sort of "downside" to scenarios like that, I still I think you're giving his post an uncharitable reading; there is clearly a difference between "no downside" and "little downside [when that little download involves the loss of innocent human life or something else that isn't insignificant]." 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

'This thing does not exist' is not even remotely the same as 'this thing is not important IMO', and the distinction is not merely a matter of semantics.

 

But: so long as we all understand that your position is the latter, not the former, and that you misspoke, that's fair enough.

 

Considering the context of that statement, it should have been fairly obvious that it meant the latter. But regardless, I'm not going to argue this point any longer.

 

First of all, technically they ARE different. I wouldn't point this out, but you said "technically." Having no downside, and having little downside, are two very obviously different things, that exist within the same spectrum, and that are observably and measurably different. Sorry, maybe I just have a pet peeve with people using the word "technically" in an unintentionally ironic manner. 

 

Second, there are plenty of situations that no one would find bad/everyone would find good, that could even conceivably happen. I could give one of my two apples to a homeless man, and I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. 

 

Third, if you think there is some sort of "downside" to scenarios like that, I still I think you're giving his post an uncharitable reading; there is clearly a difference between "no downside" and "little downside [when that little download involves the loss of innocent human life or something else that isn't insignificant]." 

We could probably have a long discussion about this some other time, perhaps in PM form or something. Here however it would be so off topic that even I can't do it.

[Gneisenau]

What bothers me so much, is not that europeans don't want the refugees, but the fact that some people act like the refugees are the scum of earth, frauds, and that their arrival is like the Islamic invasion of Europe

[Arakan]

Some users here have adopted the Neo-Nazi argumentation Strategy. Frightening.

If you dont believe look up Jobbik or NPD. same shit.

[voodooqueen126]

 

Come off it, the Arab Spring took everyone in the Western World by surprise. To say it was a 'project designed by NATO' sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me.

I have Pakistani friends blaming Israel for ISIS. So conspiracy theories are very much a thing
 Basically it's never their fault, it's always the fault of evil Juice/Great Satan America/Western Colonialism. The poverty that effects every country that tries to impose any sort of sharia law/hudood ordinance is never caused by the stupidity of trying to impose a legal system invented in the Dark Ages, but rather some conspiracy of outsiders trying to keep them poor for some nefarious reason.

So whilst it would be ridiculous to suggest that ISIS is smuggling in terrorists as refugees, it is not ridiculous to suggest that in 70 years time, when France is majority Muslim, the Louvre, Notre Dame, Chartres etc will all be destroyed, as the temple of Palmyra was destroyed, as the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed.

So whilst that picture (and reading about the little boy) is sad, I want to protect my nieces, their daughters, any daughters I might have, any granddaughters I might have, any gay children I might have, any gay grandchildren I might have...

It's awful: wanting to be compassionate, but knowing that the long term consequences will be disastrous for my country as, letting British people in to the country was to the Aboriginals.

[polishgenius]

So whilst it would be ridiculous to suggest that ISIS is smuggling in terrorists as refugees, it is not ridiculous to suggest that in 70 years time, when France is majority Muslim, the Louvre, Notre Dame, Chartres etc will all be destroyed, as the temple of Palmyra was destroyed, as the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed.

 

 

It is ludicrous to suggest that that is what is going to happen, and that the current situation is in any way comparable to European imperial colonialism.

 

 

Some users here have adopted the Neo-Nazi argumentation Strategy. Frightening.

If you dont believe look up Jobbik or NPD. same shit.

While I really disagree with some of what's said in this thread, I wish it was possible to argue the point without someone going 'Nazis!'. It's not helpful. 

[Malik Ambar]

I have Pakistani friends blaming Israel for ISIS. So conspiracy theories are very much a thing
 Basically it's never their fault, it's always the fault of evil Juice/Great Satan America/Western Colonialism. The poverty that effects every country that tries to impose any sort of sharia law/hudood ordinance is never caused by the stupidity of trying to impose a legal system invented in the Dark Ages, but rather some conspiracy of outsiders trying to keep them poor for some nefarious reason.
So whilst it would be ridiculous to suggest that ISIS is smuggling in terrorists as refugees, it is not ridiculous to suggest that in 70 years time, when France is majority Muslim, the Louvre, Notre Dame, Chartres etc will all be destroyed, as the temple of Palmyra was destroyed, as the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed.
So whilst that picture (and reading about the little boy) is sad, I want to protect my nieces, their daughters, any daughters I might have, any granddaughters I might have, any gay children I might have, any gay grandchildren I might have...
It's awful: wanting to be compassionate, but knowing that the long term consequences will be disastrous for my country as, letting British people in to the country was to the Aboriginals.

All Arabs Sharia. Got it. And could somebody please screen shot that Louvre line ?