Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,495
In Reply To
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115
Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 07:04:32 pm EDT (Viewed 184 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Im talking about war refugees not economic migrant workers
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 06:13:41 pm EDT (Viewed 207 times)



    Quote:

      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:

        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.



    Quote:
    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?


I would need to see numbers. As you have not really provided any. The issue is, human perception and reporting can blow these things out of hand. I am not arguing that an increase in population will not result in a increase in crime. It will, logically it will.

But you are making a pretty bold and brash claim here. I think one needs to substantiate that sort of thing.

On one hand you are saying they are not all to blame and then on the other hand your view is they should be left to whatever fate they may.


    Quote:

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



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


No, but if you knew a fair bit on this subject you would know what I am referring.

Many of the most publicized acts of terror have been committed by European citizens that have traveled out of country and come back. They have ties with already known groups and have been red flagged. For whatever reason they were not followed up on well.

And yes they do. People everywhere do. I am not sure if you follow the news about ISIS and other groups recruiting on twitter and such. Not all of them do anything, but they have sympathies there.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    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".


Which I think is a problem, but what you are proposing would also take considerable resources on the countries bordering the Mediterranean. Already cash and debt strapped countries that would be forced to pay a burden.

You asked for a policy solution. If these people are flagged and there are too many than an evaluation of the process should occur and more recourse into monitoring and following up where possible. That seems more reasonable to me than letting millions die.


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


You would need to give me examples. Because I find this a bit hard to believe. My quick google research only comes up with the NYPD monitoring mosques. Not avoiding them. And it looks like it was shut down for civil rights concerns.

I see many that would be considered very critical of Muslims desiring to monitor all mosques.


    Quote:
    Monitoring all the possible terrorists has become impossible.


So, nobody should try then? Seems increasing resources would be a good idea if you ask me. More logical, moral and humanitarian than denying human dignity to people.

The US is also not Europe. There are numerous differences. One being that we are not by these countries and surrounded by oceans. It is not apples to apples.

Sentiments in the US were similar during the migration from Central America a few years ago. The numbers were smaller but the same general claims were made. There was never too much on them, but some would have been fine to return the children to war zones.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    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?


What is a normal Frenchmen?

How does a normal guy commit any crime? They get something in there head and act on it for some reason.

You can try and debate the point if you want, but the people committing many of the acts of terror in Europe are not refugees. They are EU citizens.

All you need is one person that feels that they do not belong for whatever reason or is attracted to a certain line of thought and there you go. It does not take much at all. There are numerous studies on the matter. I do not even follow them closely but am aware that they exist.

Generally, they are people that do not feel like they belong. If that is on them or partly on the country or region they are in is more up for debate. They perceive they are isolated. And not everybody in those conditions ends up a terrorist.

And before you misconstrue me, I am not saying that all terrorist acts or crimes are only being performed by citizens. I do not know that to be the case. Only it is easier for citizens to travel in the EU country to country than migrants.

Crime rates are up in many places too. But not all crimes are terrorism. And a large increase in population would result in some increase in crime. It is the nature of humanity. A few of the numbers I have seen show in terms of proportions that they are not acting any worse than general occupants in terms of most crimes.


    Quote:

      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.



    Quote:
    "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.


It is a very simple conceptual solution. But it is not a simple solution in terms of carrying it out. Thus the quotations around it.

ISIS will fight to take territory but they are and have been losing territory and not fighting much to retake it. They are largely setting up bombs to punish the forces taking ground back.

So long as there are major unstable areas terrorism will be fueled. Conflicts will drive on and the immigration issues will continue. The cancer needs to be addressed or the symptoms continue. Simple as that.

Again, is there an easy fix to it. No, there never really has been but it does not change the fact that it is easy for many countries to sew the seeds that lead to situations that gradually build to things. But it is harder to deal with the fall out.

I am also not entirely sure why you think it is not worth trying to sort that issue out but are ok with the concept of sending more people back. Where their choices are pretty much die, join the fighting and probably die or potentially become radicalized themselves because there is no other work.


    Quote:

      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.


    Look, all I can say in the end is that I am sympathetic towards the countries taking in so many people. That many people is a strain on economies and cultures. Cultural clashes fill human history and hardly ever go well in the best of times. Let alone under crisis.

    However, it is also clear that such events can also bring out the worst in people. It is a hard balance to strike, but IMO turning the desperate away undermines western values at the core.

    IMO, resources are better spent with increased surveillance. I do not think that a blanket assume they are all a threat is a good policy for a culture that prides itself on inclusion.

    It is the sensitivity vs specificity problem. It is easiest to explain using a spider web example. If the threads are too close than you catch everything and waste time better served catching bugs. And too big and the bugs get through.

    Everything needs to be done that can be done, but I do not see how a black and white view on this are all the options. As even that does not prevent all terrorism. Which examples of citizen involvement in these things demonstrates. We can pretend it does though.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on Windows 10
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