Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 06:13:41 pm EDT (Viewed 205 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 04:25:27 pm EDT (Viewed 204 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            If your country is at war, you don't leave your wife and children behind and escape to a safer country to find a job. You get your family out if they are in danger. You don't leave them behind. Your answer only applies to economic immigration, not political. Big difference.

          Quote:

            Quote:

            And yet this is what these men are doing. Women are 2nd class citizens and not as important. Also a factor that being physically stronger the men are likely more capable of making it.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              But yes this is a problem with just accepting any refugees that show up...it's usually young men and ones with very strong ideologies about how things should be and not always adapting to their new location...let alone leaving the women and children behind.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Which is another reason to accept women and kids who can adapt better.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            The Polish president got critisied when he suggested that male Syrian refugees be trained militarily in Europe to go back to Syria to take back their country. If they are young and able of course.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It goes further than just criticism. Poland and Hungary are being threatened by the EU for not taking in Syrian migrants. When countries joined the EU, their understanding of free movement of people within the EU did not include what Angela Merkel and others have made of it.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          There is no doubt that not every one of these migrants is a terrorist, or that not every one will cause harm to the people of their host country. And anyone who has a heart, their heart must break for the tragedy we are witnessing today. But (you knew that was coming), the solution to the problems in that region is not the mass immigration of millions of people into Europe. We've seen the problems in Sweden. There is not the effort of integration that is required to make the policy successful. The stories of attacks all across Europe are far too frequent. Too frequent of course, except in Poland.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            By refusing to take part in allowing the massive influx of refuges into Poland, Polish politicians have saved the lives of their citizens. This sounds very cold, I know. But leaving feelings behind for a minute, examining only facts....why is it that Poland does not have the terrorist attacks we see in England, France, Belgium, and Sweden? Why is it that Tokyo, with far greater population does not have these attacks? There is only one answer....they have not taken in Syrian refuges.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              The choice is clear. A country can choose to keep it's own people safe, and allow others far away to suffer and die. Or it can help people from far away lands, and different cultures (a very noble act), but while doing so accept their 8 year old daughters are at risk for being blown up by a shrapnel bomb if they go to a concert.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I don't see a third choice unfortunately. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. The idea of allowing women and children is very compassionate. But ideas have to worked into policy, which is not always easy. For example, how will these women and children support themselves in a land where they don't know the language? This is a horrible, horrible tragedy without question. I don't think anyone can be certain of the solution. But I don't think spreading terrorism to more parts or Europe is part of that solution.



    Quote:
    With respect, this is an awful black and white view that sort of throws out the whole concept of refugees outright. It is pretty much saying die in your own country. Do not bother us.


It's not as you say, "Do not bother us". Rather it's: do not rape us, do not stab us, do not blow up our children. If the trend was that countries with these migrants has no ill effects, then there would be no issue. We all have human feelings and compassion for others. But the picture really is black and white. Poland does not have the same terrorist problems England, France, Belgium and Sweden are having. I'm going to ask you a direct question, and I'm looking for a direct answer. What other reason is there for that other than Poland having fewer muslims, and not accepting refuges?


    Quote:
    Many of these attacks are being carried out by citizens that have been radicalized.


Radicalized by who? The radicals being let into Europe now possibly? It's not that normal Brits spontaneously combust into radical jihadis.


    Quote:
    One could argue the governments should do more to monitor those individuals, particularly if they recently traveled to chaotic areas.


Yes, one could argue that. Many do. However the numbers have become overwhelming. Using England as an example, there are over 20,000 people on their list of individuals who they would like to keep track of. But there just isn't the manpower, or funding to do so. One of the recent attackers was even featured in a documentary about known jihadis living in England. But the resources aren't there to track all these people. The term "lone wolf" has now morphed into "known wolf".

In the US there are numerous cases of police not being allowed to monitor mosques where it is believed people are being radicalized.

Monitoring all the possible terrorists has become impossible.


    Quote:
    It just seems this assumption is too far one way. One side would be let them all in and the other would be let nobody in. Seems to me that the argument between safety and security are linked far to often. And the results are still not a guarantee when radicalization occurs at home.


The idea that normal, proud Frenchmen spontaneously become radicals needs to be explained to me better. Could allowing radicals into the country from the middle east play a part in that redicalization?


    Quote:
    I would also argue that there is a "simple" solution to this. The fighting in Syria and surrounding areas needs to be stopped. It is a mess and nobody has wanted to make any hard decisions, outside of Russia I guess, but the best way to stop the flow and return people would be give them a safe place to go back to and rebuild.


"The fighting needs to be stopped" is by no means a simple solution. How does the fighting stop? Will Assad stop fighting to maintain power? Will ISIS stop fighting to gain territory? I don't understand how the fighting just stops.


    Quote:
    That is not easy at all, but to my thoughts at least, saying nobody in defeats the purpose of what little international law on the subject I have heard about.





Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2017 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2017 Powermad Software